Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

Actually, you still yet have to explain how the undefined 'kinds' became the well over a million different species of animals and plants in 4500 or so years. The suggestion that Noah's decendents engaged in some kind of selective breeding program starting with an extremely limited parent population is at least as absurd as any 'super-hyper-califagilistic-macroevolution.'Calling hyper-macroevolution hyper-miroevolution and then saying this makes all the difference is like saying changing the characterization of Pluto from a planet to a dwarf planet somehow changes the physical properties of Pluto.You still have each and every problem with the Noah's Ark myth calling any subsequent diversity of life microevolution as you do with calling it macroevolution.Edited by anglagard, : added subsequentEdited by anglagard, : speling

quote:

---

floresta defines kind--family.

---

OK, I was thinking more in terms of historically undefined but that being the case, lets go ahead and examine how such familiy archtypes, with such limited genetic potential, can turn into all species observed today.One would of course have to explain how such archtypes evolved so quickly between 4500 and 2500 years ago that no one from the Greek, Roman, Chinese, Hindu, Inca, Olmec, or any other civilization commented on their advanced selective breeding programs they so unselfishly devoted to all life on Earth.

Yes, but was the species there prior to the discovery, or did it only poof into existance just before it was described?I think the apparently hidden assumption that humans categorized all species several hundred years ago and that therefore any newly discovered species must have evolved since then is absurdly erroneous.ABE - This response is based upon my interpretation of what was implied by new species being discovered somehow also implied that all such species evolved in the interim in some kind of hyper-macro-micro evolutionary process. This is not meant to imply that no such species could have evolved in the interim, just that the vast majority were already there awaiting discovery as even today humans have not described all species on the planet.Edited by anglagard, : clarityEdited by anglagard, : Preemptive strike against misinterpretation of meaning.

Are you saying that lions and housecats came from the same primordial archtype in less than 1500 years? I think the Romans had visual representations of each 2000 years ago showing such superhypermicroevolution had already suceeded in seperating the two species quite markedly. Also, didn't the Egyptians not only visually represent but also mummify cats, indicating that the archtype cat would have been much closer to the common housecat?Are you saying evoution is wrong because dogs don't give birth to cats and your model is correct because it has cats giving birth to lions within a few hundred years, if that?Also, strange that the Egyptians, Chinese, and Incas did not record this hypermicroevolution model in action.Am also puzzled about who was in charge of the selective breeding program? Was it a hands-on deity guiding such artificial selection or was it the university animal husbandry programs and genetic engineering laboratories of the same Egyptians, Chinese, and Incas? And if it was a hands-on deity artificial selection program wouldn't that automatically make it natural selection, albiet speeded up to the point where cats give birth to lions?

OK point taken. Don't you realize that you have a remarkable opportunity to show your hypothesis is correct? Just turn a housecat into a lion within the allotted timeframe. Surely AIG and or ICR would jump at this opportunity. In fact, you should be working on your proposal right now.Edited by anglagard, : speling

Strange such great change, if so normal, has been unobserved in historic times outside of human-induced selective breeding.

Current evidence, as in right now. You are the one arguing that so-called hypermicroevolution is normal, so normal in fact there is nothing hyper about it. If normal, then it should be happening right before our very eyes.

What kind is a Tasmanian Tiger? is it a cat kind or a kangaroo kind? Is a Echidna a hedgehog kind or a bird kind (lays eggs). Is a Tasmainian Devil a Raccoon kind or a Opossum kind? What kind is a platypus? How does one define "kind?" differently than morphologically or genetically? Looks kinda like? Smells kinda like? Fits in a boat kinda like?

Speciation refers to species, not kinds that hypermicroevolve from a commmon ancestor of housecats and lions in less than 500 years. What is the housecat and lion hypermicroevolving into today? Additionally, shouldn't both have been a different closer-to-root species 500 years ago? Why is there no backup from historic writings if evolution happens so fast? Why has there been little to no observable change in the last 50 years, 100 years?Life evolving over 3.5 billion years is one thing, over 4500 years, even as a slice, well that is something entirely different.What is this all about? It's impossible for evolution to be slow so it has to be absurdly and unobservedly fast? IMHO, proposition is utterly without reason or logic.

ABE - Off topic responseEdited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Agreed. This is what I said:

quote:

---

You are the one arguing that so-called hypermicroevolution is normal, so normal in fact there is nothing hyper about it.

---

I was using the term so-called to show you did not agree with the terminology, and was asserting it was, according to you, normal microevolution as in the part "there is nothing hyper about it." Obviously, I was not clear enough on this point. No false attribution was intended. Now I'm confused. Normal evolution is slowing down? That's quite an assertion. If you could provide irrefutable evidence, I believe a Nobel Prize is in the offing. I'm beginning to get the funny feeling my position is being misrepresented. Obviously, I agree that speciation continues, although not at some unobserved "hyper" rate. Where have I said it hasn't?

At this level, humans, bonobos, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are all members of the family Hominidae. Therefore, the other apes need not be factored in as different kinds under this model, as they are all descendents of Noah and his extended family.Kinda puts a new twist on the assertion one didn't descend from apes if most apes descended from humans.

Black Sea