Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

Sure, socially and politically motivated Christians, plenty of those. It's not many in numbers nevertheless. And the science-minded are going to be a much smaller group. I'm talking about people learning SCIENCE, apart from evo or creo theory, LIKING science, being attracted to science, being attracted to it enough to make a career out of it. It's always only a small percentage. And then going for a particular science such as geology or genetics narrows the field further. I was talking about the money to recruit creationist geologists to the research on flood deposits that Archer Op recommended we do. I don't think the US government is going to fund that kind of work.And yes, there is going to be some attrition as creationists of weak faith and training get seduced to evolutionism.All this reduces the number of creationist scientists available for the kind of work recommended by Archie O.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Apparently a Kind does fit mjf's criteria. Turns out it's pretty intuitive what a Kind is after all. Dogs, cats, horses, cattle etc.Seems to me I recall that some here have objected to classing dingoes with dogs, but if they can be hybridized with jackals and domestic dogs and wolves they are definitely the same Kind. But even the chimera demonstrates relatedness, or belonging to the same Kind. Hybridization does not add anything new, it merely recombines alleles formerly separated by earlier selection and separation processes. if it is "speciation" it is speciation in a different sense than that brought about by those separation processes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I must be misunderstanding something. I thought your list demonstrated a very good start at defining a Kind, based on what mjf had said about hybridization. What are you arguing about?

I saw the guess about family level but it didn't read to me as hard and fast, merely as a guess, and he/she also said that the taxonomic system isn't a reliable reference for it, to which I agreed. This is why we usually don't try to guess.But I was intrigued by the idea that hybridization could establish a Kind, and here you come up with a list of hybrids that definitely links together types that one would intuitively link as related, although there hasn't been any clear way to say for sure. If all those cats can interbreed, then all cats are a Kind; if all those canids can interbreed, same. Also donkeys with horses with zebras. All intuitive groupings. Intuitive based on what mjf has called "body plan" -- we know a horse when we see it even if it's two feet tall or fifteen feet tall, has stripes or whatever. All this speculation about what would have fit on the ark is meaningless navel-gazing. If they can interbreed we are on our way to the Kind. Forget the taxonomic system. If they can interbreed we've got a Kind.{EDIT: Oh, about rejecting "species" the problem is a definitional one. We'd be happy to use it except it's been co-opted by the ToE to nefarious other uses.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, she? is the one who came up with the hybridization criterion, and I didn't know there had been all these interbred types. Now I'd say there is definitely some evidence based on that criterion. It looks good to me.Otherwise, all the other stuff merely pointing to the genome to "prove" humans are related to chimps and so on is NOT evidence. That's been my position. But these actual living combinations ARE evidence. I didn't see her? saying this. I thought she? corrected a misunderstanding about something along these lines. Well, probably not to make us creationists happy though, so what was your ulterior motive in producing that list?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well good night MJ. I know you're a fairly young guy by your Profile -- by contrast with my aged self at least. You've done more for the clarification of microevolution and Kinds so far than anyone else at EvC I'd say. Nice clear thinking; I'm impressed. Kuresu helped in this last stretch though, probably inadvertently. Happy Sunday. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Good night kuresu. I'm happy as a clam. Whatever that means. I think Progress was made on this thread today. I'm sure my joy won't last as the next shift of evos comes on, but great, we actually have a start toward defining a Kind???Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, sure, we'll have to reorganize the taxonomic table if we do get Kinds sorted out. But so far all we have is a very few for a beginning, and for all I know somebody will bring up some problem with the list you gave. The problem is it's an intuitive thing, unless mfj has more objective criteria for it. When he said that all the known variation does not change the basic body plan I simply knew what he meant. But specifying it isn't so easy. A dog is a dog is a dog whether it's a chihuahua or a St. Bernard or anything else, and it isn't going to be mistaken for a cat (on close examination, anyway, should one superficially look cattish). I tried to group kinds by behavior on a thread a few months ago. But the problem is that it is an intuitive or subjective classification. It drove me crazy that people would dispute the classification by behavior which to my mind is obvious, but oh well; the same is no doubt now going to be true about "body plan."On the other hand, what makes the Linnaean system anything more than subjective? I really think this is all irrelevant, and that if it can be interbred, artificially if necessary, that's all we need to know. The taxonomic levels can be sorted out later. Based on what? Kinds should be arrayed across the top of the list, and there should be no higher classification because they aren't a subset of anything.*Speciation splits EVERYTHING at EVERY level, kuresu. I don't see how this is any kind of criterion for anything. As soon as you've bred a new dog you've created a split that is a speciation event. I'll have to study the taxonomic table again, maybe tomorrow if I have time. I've been ignoring it because I haven't seen its relevance.{EDIT: * Kinds are the grouping of many genetic variations on their theme, descended from an original that contained all the genetic information needed for every variation since. So their classification is basically genetic, not morphological and they ARE the top of the tree genetically speaking. Morphology would enter into it when there is no way to establish relatedness otherwise I suppose.I did look up the classifications and they just don't help with this problem. The standard taxonomic classification is either purely morphological or according to evolutionist ideas of genetics and just doesn't apply. Some Kinds may turn out to be at what is now labeled Genus level and some at Family level on the current tree, and for all I know some may be at other levels too, but wherever they are they are a closed genetic group defined by capacity to interbreed, even if this can only be done artificially.Some interbreeding is very problematic even within a Kind of course, and some may even turn out to be impossible although there are other reasons to include a type in the Kind. The problems with interbreeding, according to the YEC view, are caused by the fact that "speciation" or the separation of the types from each other have involved the loss of much genetic material ("information") that was present in the original population. So, I think I read somewhere that the cheetah simply can't be interbred with any other cat by any means whatever. Maybe this is wrong. But if it's right, this doesn't put the cheetah outside the cat Kind.So, the Linnaean system will end up classifying simply by morphology above the Kinds, but the Kinds are Genetic Kingdoms.} Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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. 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.MJ was not dogmatic about what level of the taxonomic tree represents a Kind and neither have I been. The taxonomic system is not very useful for this purpose. The ability to interbreed seems to be the best criterion, and kuresu's list of hybrid creatures seems to answer a lot of questions about what constitutes some of the Kinds.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I hope MJ can define "body plan." Maybe you have the ability to do it yourself. Surely you can recognize the basic body build of a horse as versus a goat as versus a dog as versus an elephant. Try for a definition.The limits of the Kind are defined by the capacity to interbreed, if only by artificial insemination. Isn't that good enough for a definition? This is the first hopeful definition of a Kind I've yet seen. It solves my problem with the interbreeding criterion which is that so many obvious members of a Kind don't interbreed, but MJ pointed out it's probably not that they can't but just don't, so artificial insemination would be a test. But kuresu's list of hybrids is confirmation of this idea anyway it seems to me. There are probably some exceptions in which interbreeding isn't possible between some members of a Kind (because of genetic depletion?) but I would suppose that those are rare and that the similar morphology would be the criterion in that case.I did define Kinds back a few posts, which I might modify to: "A Kind is the total of all genetic variations on a particular body plan, descended from an original that contained all the genetic information needed for every variation since; and inclusion in the Kind should be testable by the ability to interbreed, even if that requires artificial intervention."When MJ gets back from church maybe he'll have a better definition.

Does "body build" suggest something different?I know exactly what MJ meant myself and I'm sure there are others who do, so when enough of those who do happen to consider the question, then we may be able to come up with a definition.Cat body flexibility vs. dog body stiffness perhaps is a distinction. I still think behavior is most definitive myself. Elephant trunk, tusks, thick legs. Etc.

Doesn't work. Need a definition that covers the distinction between the dog body and the cat body and the horse body and so on.

Nobody is "bashing taxonomy." Linnaeus' system simply doesn't work well enough for our present purposes.

That's what I said. Just in case. The point is WE DO NOT KNOW, and in the case of dinosaurs we'll never know because we won't be artificially inseminating fossils. OK. That group will have to be sorted as to what constitutes a Kind by someone other than me. Yes. There is ambiguity in how the term is used in the Bible, and ambiguity about what was included on the ark. But what we are after is the ORIGINAL kinds, because we know they were the progenitors of the whole group after them. It doesn't matter. Break it down if that's necessary. All I was saying is that whatever the Kind is, one or a dozen of them, it was represented on the ark. The ability to interbreed is going to be foundational, even if it doesn't perfectly fit what was on the ark. We have no way of knowing what was on the ark with such precision, but I think interbreeding makes an objective start on the original Kinds at least. If you can figure out how to determine this with fossils, please let us know. Don't get too far ahead. This is a project that would take time. First define Body Plan. Kind will not violate such classifications. No, that's a mistake. Defining species in terms of breeding is wrong. Many obvious members of a Kind are defined as separate species by that evolutionist system, because they don't or can't interbreed with the parent population. The virtue of the classification of interbreeding MJ introduced is that those won't be excluded from the Kind because we are assuming that while they don't, they probably can interbreed with other types of the Kind. And if they can't, well, a frog is a frog is a frog whether it can interbreed with other frogs or not.Some interbreeding is possible at the genus level. If interbreeding is possible, those are members of the Kind. That's pretty clear, woudln't you say? It's a good enough classification. And again, it may also be a member of the Kind if it can't interbreed. Where did I ASSERT any such thing? Please reread the above if you still think that. Said no such thing. My language was tentative. Thing is we don't know and may not be able to know. But I'll say this: I think stranger things than evolution postulates are possible in reality. Is there some genetic barrier to their interbreeding or could it be done artificially? Since one is a clean bird and one unclean I woudl expect that they are two different Kinds anyway.Why do I find what credible? You are reading way too much into my very casual/tentative thoughts on this subject.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well then, maybe there is another term that would get it across better to you, or maybe there is none. We are looking for a meaning of "body plan" -- or whatever term works best -- that defines human beings of ALL builds in a way that distinguishes them as a group from chimpanzees; and cats from dogs and elephants and deer and mice and so on. I guess you aren't thinking along the same lines I am. This is how it is subjective and intuitive. No matter. I'll wait and see if MJ comes up with a better definition. Yes but according to the body plan idea the thickness of the legs is definitive, in combination with the tusks and the trunk.Apparently we will have to wait for more people who intuitively know what we're talking about to begin to define this or we'll be arguing such irrelevant categories forever.