Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

I see this thread was started like 3 days ago and its already up to 17 pages. That's incredible.I haven't gone through the entire thread, but from what I've seen, it seems to be the age old argument on micro and macro and what does it all mean, what is a 'kind', there are no examples of macro, people keep using micro to explain macro, and so on and so forth.Why not settle the matter quickly by presenting some actual evidence? There is no evidence that can be given in support of Noah's Ark. The only thing that can be done is to provide feasibility studies, which are all fine and good, but neither present all variables, and neither does it support or defend evolution or creationism. But, it should be abundantly obvious that if macroevolution is merely a magnification of microevolution, the evidence should be plain to see -- so much so that our arguing about it should be trivial.Instead of the usual harangue and instead of the usual hyperbolic sentiments, such as but not limited to, "There are millions of transitional forms," would somebody provide for the board a legitimate piece of evidence of a macroevolutionary event of speciation?

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

If no one is able to define what it means without using ambiguous terminology or without injecting a clear example of microevolution then I suppose there isn't much purpose in arguing the point.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

The problem is that no one has been able expedite the process via controlled selection, mutations, or genetic drifting to show clear signs of speciation. The best that we have done is to create sub-species. That is not a formula for how there are billions of species on the planet. Don't you think some evidence for that would be most beneficial for the argument? The problem is, the event referred to as 'speciation,' has a requisite that posits that one organism from a peripheral population becomes unable to procreate with even its closest ancestor. That obviously would not offer any proof. What that would do is to mask as supposed proof. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Perhaps. I'm not settled on a young-earth model, however, I feel that its significance has been undermined rather unduly. Case in point, its only taken 3 centruries to produce a magnificent array of canine and equine variation. That isn't very long at all. So if we can spit that many out in 300 hundred years of trying, what can nature spit out all on its own through selection? I think 5,000 years is a sufficient amount of time produce such variations, particularly when its been humans that have had alot to do with the migration of certain animals such as dogs and horses.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

I'm not agruing, I'm educating.

So, what you are actually saying is that those animals that aren't viable, i.e., a mule because it cannot succesfully proliferate any progeny, is somehow an example of macroevolution? Hybrids are prime examples of what happens when introduce mutation to the equation. Its also the product of gene frequency and of those genes being a copy off of a copy and how they are less pure their ancestors. That is not a case of speciation because the mule isn't viable, therefore, what is going to come of it? If there ceased to be horses, there would cease to be mules. Speciation would be that mule unable to procreate with the horse and also be able to propagate a new species apart from the horse. That obviously isn't the case. If two animals can fertilize an egg to produce a hybrid offshoot of its own kind, then it obviously means they come from the same kind. It shouldn't surprise anyone that a Lion can succesfully mate with a Tiger any more than it should surprise us that a Horse can mate with a Zebra. If species from different genera were able to procreate, then I'd say that its quite a feat and would seriously consider a reconsideration of my current disposition. Yeah, I've seen this page before and I've already written my objection on it, particularly my objection to the Drosophila Melanogaster.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

The criteria for speciation is the formation of a new species as the result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other. That means that one subspecie branches off peripherally from the main population so that in the event the two come together again in a chance meeting, they will be different enough so as to be incapable of breeding with one another. But perhaps the reason why speciation is a bit of an ambiguous term is because there are four different types meaning different things to describe different events. Probably the most widely used is allopatric speciation that explains how any given sub-population can become isolated and develop new features. But this is a clear example of a microadaptive process, not macroevolution. So, I would like for someone to give clear examples of such a phenomena as macroevolution in nature. I mean, the inability to procreate should not be the sole reason for speciation. Case in point: A Great Dane and a Chihuahua may not be able to breed for anatomical reasons, but on the genetic level there should be no problem because they are both canine. I agree fully, which is why I mentioned mules in a previous post. Well, I think the term is misused just like the term 'evolution' is misused. Its crucial that these terms be clearly described and that there is a definate distinction made so the laymen won't be mislead to believe that because two finches have different colored beaks that it must somehow mean that the finch is also related to a nematode.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

I did consider it. Don't you think that if these gradations took place that the earth has maintained some evidence of such? There are over a million fossil remains housed in various museums and universities the world over. None of them have been able to link one specie to the next. All we ever see is well-established organisms in full formation, not in any kind of transitional limbo. Out of millions of expamples, what are the odds that not one of them would yield some fruit for the theory? So, what compelling reason is there to assume that macroevoultion exists when its never been witnessed and its never been recorded in the fossil record? There isn't anything crappy about Geology. What is crappy is how the usage of radiometric dating methods often employ circular reasoning. Its hard to say because there are no examples of such, therefore, its hard to imagine what it might look like. But, what seems reasonable is an organism that basically shares qualities with an entire population but has some unequivocal new features never seen before. For instance, Archaeopteryx is conceivably missing hundreds of links between avian and saurian. That is unless you think that rudimentary feathers, fully formed wings, different vascular, pulmonary, integumentary and digestive systems could be radically altered in one felled swoop of time. Then you have to consider why early Archeaopteryx benefited from his 'nubs' as his forelimbs were evolving into wings. What enhanced his survivability, rather than diminish his odds of selection? What prompted the changes to occur in the first place? On and on and on. Just saying, time + mutation + chance = evolution is too much brevity to entertain. That's as bad saying, "Godditit!" That's not enough. And neither explains anything.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

No, I'm not mischaracterizing or embellishing what any reasonable person would expect to see. I wouldn't expect to see plantman and goatboy, I expect to see a stepwise graduation from one tier to the next. I would expect there to be some spottyness in the fossil record, but surely there should be at least one series of genera that we can clearly identify going through a series of speciation. But its not. Its all based upon inferences. And inferences are fine so long as there is some level of corroboration. I see no such corroboration for any macroevolutionary process. Apparently I'm not alone. I share this kinship with IDers and evolutionists.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Where this limbo would be where all animals are, which is everywhere. Theoretically, that sounds just wonderful and plausible. And there would be no way to account for that. Just like trying to watch your fingernails grow or watching your hair grow. You can't do it because the transitions are insensibly fine. Point taken. Here's the problem: When looking at the fossil record, there are hundreds of missiing links in between one specie to its supposed closest answer in the exact same way we find them today, which is completely separate-- so separate that one must wonder how they are ever related at all. If a dog became a bear or vice-versa, then clearly there should be some evidence. Concievably, there must have been thousands upon thousands of years of geologic record that has gone unaccounted for. Now, what are the odds that this phenomenon has happened over and over and over again? It doesn't add up. Yes, it sounds possible in theory, but the physical evidence doesn't support the assertion.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal