|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
I applaud your effort to construct a workable model with precise terms.
mjfloresta writes:
Yes, I would propose that the dog, elephant, horse, and cat each had their own "kind". How do you understand the relationship of the kind 'horse' to creatures like Hyracotherium (Eohippus), Mesohippus, Miohippus, Merycchippus, Pliohippus? All belong to family Equidae.Equidae - Wikispecies Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
mjfloresta asked Ringo:
How do you know the difference between a lion and housecat is "much greater" than that between a poodle and Dalmatian? Genetics? Morphology? Species, to start with. The poodle and the Dalmation are the same species (Canis lupus familiaris). The lion (Panthera leo)and the house cat (Felis sylvestris catus) are not. Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
rjfloresta writes:
Keeping in mind that I haven't studies every species, genus, and family, on earth, I will answer your questions as soon as I can... I appreciate that. I didn't expect that you had, and I know everyone here is going to keep you busy. It just seemed I should be able to predict it. If 'kind' operates at the 'Family' level, then one pair of ancestors covers all the equids. That could even help with some space issues on the ark, because a dawn horse (Hyracotherium) would be much more compact than a modern horse (Equus). But this would mean that all those varieties I mentioned, and many more, evolved after the Flood and subsequently went extinct. I wondered if I should understand the extinct equids as pre-dating the Flood. Either chronological placement raises issues. . Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
mjfloresta writes:
[...]surely genetics has proven the relatedness of all life; Has it? Genetics has shown us 2 things; All life is based on the same genetic code. And, the similarity of the genome from one organism to another can be quantified. What does that mean? It means we can know--based on genetics--that you are related to your grandfather. And we can know how closely you are related. It means we can also know--based on genetics--that you are related, though more distantly, to your third cousin. We can also know--based on the same science--that you are related, though still more distantly, to the lady at the corner drugstore. We can also know--based on the same science--that you are related, though even more distantly, to Bonzo the chimp. We can also know--based on the same science--that you are related, though even more distantly, to Fritz the cat. We can also know--based on the same science--that you are related, though even more distantly, to Toby the tapeworm. If you want science to draw a boundary somewhere in there, you have to demonstrate a valid scientific basis for drawing it. There's no point denying a connection between genetics and relatedness. The link is established. Ask granddad.
ToE uses genetic similarity to determine the degree of relatedness or less-relatedness; The only question ToE asks is "how related are two organisms". It assumes that the organisms are in fact related. The ToE does not 'assume' all organisms are related. The ToE predicted it. Genetics proved it. Relatedness is not assumed. Scientists describe organisms as related only when they are shown to be related. How does it show? The same way it shows whether you are related to your grandfather. It just happens that all life on earth is indeed related this way. The genetic investigations were made and that's the reality. A time existed not long ago, before the science of genetics progressed as far as it has, when one could hypothesize other outcomes. Many creationists did. But those outcomes did not happen. Relatedness is the reality.
It fails to ask whether genetics can answer the question "are two organisms related?". Of course it can. It does everyday. Remember granddad?
Creationists have no genetic basis for determing the placement of the kind: Thanks for the candor. But this will not do. If you mean to establish 'kinds' as categories of organisms that do not mutate (evolve) beyond certain boundaries, you need to show the placement of those boundaries. Those boundaries have to function at the genetic level.
there is no genetic mechanism for determining whether two organisms are in fact related - or merely appear so (taxonomy, morphology) or share similar building blocks (genetics).. Imagine someone in a paternity suit denying a relationship to a baby. The genetic tests show conclusively he is the father. But he argues that he and the kid are not 'in fact related' but 'merely appear so' because they happen to 'share similar building blocks.' Does he have a chance?
Thus both paradigms are equally unable to assert relatedness based on the current state of morphology or genetics. It's a waste of time trying to wish the the ToE into the same pseudoscientific boat as creationism. You admit gobs of evolution anyway. Your task is to get any alternative theories you like out of that leaky boat with some real science. You say some related organisms are really related and some related organisms only 'appear to be' so. On what basis? To get anyone to buy that, you are obliged to define the boundaries of real relatedness as opposed to your hypothesized 'illusory' relatedness. The distinction has to be testable. This lame effort to fog the validity of genetic evidence did you little good. Your time was better spent, IMO, when you were presenting your own theory. Let's get back to that. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Subtitle. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Spelling. Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
kuresu writes:
so kind is species? because that whole hybridize and make viable offspring is really, really close to the biological concept for species. That's what I was noticing. I had the understanding at first that 'kind' was analogous to Families. But if you take it down to the breeding level the animal population of the ark balloons to astronomical numbers. There would be no 'horse' kind. Noah would need at least one breeding pair for each of these equids: Anchilophus I say 'at least one pair' because these are just the genus level classifications. Already Noah and his family are reserving a sizable portion of ark space to the housing of this one family of mammals. Take the horse thing down to the species level and you run into more than just space problems. Now you're talking about a lot of methane gas in an enclosed area, if you get my drift. Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
jar writes:
Remember horse is a clean kind. So make that 7 pair of each. Oh, my. You're right. A few weeks of that and Noah's family would be feeling a lot of irony in that word 'clean'... Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
jar writes:
And where is the evidence that supports this alleged huge genome? This looks like something there should be some fossil evidence for. Insects in amber, frozen mammoths. . Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarification. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
mjfloresta:
I've never taken it down to the species level; everyone else has; I suspect the kind to be around the family level (within the constraints that i've mentioned repeatedly in this thread) Everyone else is taking it to that level because they know your 'constraints' put it there. Observe:
I proposed a method of elucidating what organisms pertain to what kind; that method or criteria is to determine whether insemination is possible between organisms. Such insemination, under my model, infers relatedness.. That's your constraint: breeding. Here's Google.
It appears your breeding 'constraint' fits the prevalent understanding of the word species very well.
I've also previously mentioned that hybridization experiments are rare. We have very little detail; So unless you've done such experiments or have seen the results of such, you have no basis for lowering the "kind" to the species level. It appears that I do. It is you who have no basis for elevating species criteria to the Family level.
That goes for each of the genus levels of equids you've listed; In the absence of such experiments between these genera, you can't factually determine that they can't inseminate, thus that they aren't of the same kind.. Do you know what a Hyracotherium is?Hyracotherium - Wikipedia If so, do you really find it plausible that this creature could be crossed with an Equus? There's a reason these creatures do not share the same species or genus name. No one found the idea of interbreeding between them very likely. But no, I can't say I've really run the experiment. So I'll be generous and grant for the moment that all the varieties of equid that have ever existed arose from the archetypal creatures on the ark. Here's a list of them again (genus level): Anchilophus Now I have two questions: First, how long would this diversification take? Remember, the creatures need time to evolve, thrive long enough to leave fossil records of multiple individuals on at least two continents, and go extinct before too many human historial records make mention of them. Second, why is this not macroevolution? . Edited by AdminFaith, : Links shortened by Admin Faith Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML fix. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
anglagard:
At this [Family] 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. Good point. That would save Noah some space. And in the absence of insemination experiments, you can't say it couldn't happen, can you? Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Faith asserts:
The fossils record IS what was wiped out by the flood. If this statement is true, the geological record, properly explored, will reflect it. The result of a global catastrophic flood will leave a very different geological record than the one shown in all our science books. Creationists have another golden opportunity to falsify the theory of evolution once and for all! You will find the blueprint for doing so in the Falsifications thread, Message 37:http://EvC Forum: Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical Creationism -->EvC Forum: Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical Creationism Good luck with the expeditions. I look forward to the scientific bonanza ahead! Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Archaeopteryx hasn't been back. Don't despair. I only stepped out for some rice noodles. Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Faith:
We're happy with the one that is shown. It demonstrates the flood quite well. 'Quite well'--what is that? This should be a slam dunk! You are talking about the biggest disaster ever to hit the planet. A global catastrophic flood would allow no other interpretations. One should find fossils in a chaotic jumble. Large land animals trying to escape flood waters would end up in similar strata (mammoth, sauropods, ground sloths) as would large marine creatures (basilosaurs, mosasaurs, orthocones). Scientists say sauropods won't end up with mammoths because they evolved at different times. But you know this is not true. Right? And--since you are sure creationism is true--you know everything you need to know to begin the expeditions to find these things. Creationists already have the experts, right? They have the organizational resources. They have a unifying theory. It's time for them to roll up their sleeves and start mapping strata. Click those cameras. Bring in those bones and artifacts.
Well, polystrate trees and the like have been found but always get explained away. In fact lots of examples that validate the flood and contradict the ToE have been found but evos just rationalize them away, against logic but with a lot of aggression. So whatever we find is going to meet with the same treatment. Kid stuff. Why set your sights so low? You should be able to find whole mountain ranges, Faith, whole canyons and gorges where the established evolutionary sequence never appears at all. A global flood is a catastrophe--chaotic, messy, tragic. It would leave an untold jumble of fossils over areas so vast that evolutionists can never sort it out. Look hard, search the world, and find the dramatic proof you know is out there: the therapsid skeletons with spear points embedded in the rib cages, the remains of human settlements trampled underfoot by the panicking herds of titanosaurs, the archaic temples flooded with broken idols and the pathetic, charred bones of sacrificed protoceratops. Why are you waiting for evolutionary scientists to find this evidence for you? You don't trust them. You obviously think they'd just hush it up anyway. It follows that the real scientists--the creationists!--have to take the research responsibilities into their own hands. Get out there! Urge the faithful to pull together and sponsor and dispatch these global expeditions. Find the vast regions of flood deposits with their helter-skelter jumble of fossils. Use dating methods to to establish that the evolutionary chronology cannot possibly account for what you have found. Then come galumphing back. End the evolutionist lie once and for all. You'll have no trouble... if creationism is true. Polystrate trees. Pshaw. Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Faith wrote:
The sabre-toothed tiger never came back. The dinosaurs never came back. Archaeopteryx hasn't been back. kuresu write:
Just to clarify: Are you saying that those examples were wiped out by the flood? Faith replied:
Of course. The fossils record IS what was wiped out by the flood. Hold the phone. mjfloresta is telling us that a breeding pair of each kind (family level at the most, with genus and species levels implicated) was taken on the ark. The purpose of this was to save these creatures from destruction in the Flood. Now Faith tells us that at least one entire superorder in the Animal Kingdom, containing throngs of 'kinds' (families, genus, species) was 'wiped out by the Flood.' The non-avian dinosaurs are extinct today because they were not saved from this catastrophe. Dinosauria - Wikispecies So which is it? Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
We have yet to see scientific definitions of kind and body plan.
For kind we have been told by mjf that it equates to the Family level of classification. The defining criterion of 'kind' is the possibility of breeding, though, which implicates the genus and species levels. The discrepancy has not been clarified. Faith tells us that defining body plan is an 'intuitive thing'. She says she can't define it, but maybe mjf can. Both of you are putting forward a view that asserts these terms describe real genetic limits. But you do not provide the description and you do not show the limits. These are crucial terms in your hypothesis. If you intend it to pass muster as science, you are obligated to define these terms in a way that locates, and predicts, genetic realities. What are those definitions? Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Faith writes:
I was speaking of what is seen in the fossil record and not seen now -- many representatives of many Kinds. That doesn't imply that a representative of the Kind was not on the ark. There had to be a pair of the Kind that includes the dinosaurs, whatever that Kind is. Did you just say that Noah took a pair of the 'kind' that includes the dinosaurs? You are now postulating a 'kind' grouping that is larger than an entire superorder. Do youknow what a superorder is? Dinosauria is a whopping big category, and I'm not talking about the physical size of some individiuals. It's diverse. You are talking about a huge array of creatures exhibiting, if you will, a vast array of 'body plans.' The Bible says Noah took ravens and doves onto the ark. Ravens and doves would therefore represent two different 'kinds.' Taking a single pair of the Kind 'birds' to cover both was not an option. Yet for the superorder Dinosauria one pair does the job. Did you really mean to say this?
It could have been a smaller type of the Kind, or it is possible that large reptiles lived after the flood for some period. I take the dragon stories seriously myself. In any case SOME pair of the Kind was saved. I guess you did. Wow. I would like to know more about the science of this. If Noah has to take ravens and doves, on what basis does one pair suffice to cover the entire range of ankylosaurs, titanosaurs, hadrosaurs, prosauropods, coelurosaurs, oviraptors, iguanodonts, brachiosaurs, diplodicids, tyrannosaurs, ceratopsians, stegosaurs, allosaurs, baryonyx, archaic birds and modern birds? We haven't even begun to consider other varieties of ancient creatures that do not fall into the superorder Dinosauria. We still have a vast number of reptiles, mammals and creatures that resist clasification as either (therapsids, pelycosaurs, etc.) to account for.
MJ was not dogmatic about what level of the taxonomic tree represents a Kind and neither have I been. Obviously not.
The taxonomic system is not very useful for this purpose. But your term Kind is not useful at all. It's all over the place. The taxonomic system is at least based on reality. The criteria are objective and address observable features. If one thinks a creature belongs in the catogory 'placental mammals' one knows how to make the case. There is a definition to meet and observable features to account for. Your term 'kind' meant something like a family when we got started, then a species when you started talking about breeding, and now it has been blown back to absorb an entire superorder of creatures!
The ability to interbreed seems to be the best criterion 'Kind' means the ability to interbreed. Objective criterion. Gotcha. You are therefore asserting that all the varieties of the superorder 'Dinosauria' could interbreed. Ankylosaurs, in your view, could breed with oviraptors could breed with iquanodonts could breed with sauropods could breed with stegosaurs could breed with archaic birds could breed with tyrannosaurs could breed with ceratopsiands could breed with modern birds. Given the fact that not even all modern birds can breed with each other (doves and ravens!), why do you find this credible? Archer
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024