Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

It is very odd that anyone would raise a question about this. What explanation can there be for such taxonomically isolated creatures other than that their predecessors and cousins on the taxonomic tree have become extinct?

We are offering an alternative explanatory framework for the SAME information the ToE uses. Logic and coherence is a lot to offer in terms of evidence. The ToE is just as baseless as anything we've said. It's just another explanatory system for the same stuff.

I'm sure both of us have a good idea of what's involved, he probably more than I but I've done a fair amount of research. How many is not necessarily relevant to the current discussion. When it's relevant I'll discuss it. It postulates their supposed relationship. The rest is knowledge available to evolutionist and creationist alike. What do you mean "still?" We are just beginning to put together a new idea and we use some obvious examples for a start. I've discussed tectonic theory on many other threads. This is not a thread about tectonic theory. I'm aware of the areas of difficulty. Aw, thank you. So sweet. What this has to do with the attempt to put together a broad objection to the ToE is beyond me. Yeah, I know it looks like major chutzpah but it's not as if I'm alone. Creationists have been studying this stuff for decades. I've been posting here a lot longer than you have, Archie. Well then we've got the basics. First you say we're taking on more than we can chew and more than anyone should dare have the effrontery to attempt, and then you complain that we are just at the beginning. Why do you assume I know so little? How far back in my posts have you bothered to read? I don't think you have a clue what we're trying to do.Cheers.

We have to assume more genes in the earlier varieties of the Kind that were on the ark, a bigger genome. We have to assume that Noah and his family of three sons and their wives had the genetic capacity to be the progenitors of everybody on earth, all the Semites and the Africans and the Europeans and the Chinese and the Indians and the native populations of the Americas. Implies a large genetic ability no longer seen. How this was shown in the genome we don't know.

The science will come. We start from what we know and we expect the needed scientific explanations to follow.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We're just starting with the "body plan" idea MJ introduced, which is where the dogs and cats came in. There are plenty of other things to study.

Well, if you are going to talk to creationists there is no point in wasting your breath telling us our premises don't meet with your approval. We know they don't. But they are the basis for everything we put together, and it does hold together quite coherently and logically. That in itself ought to be some validation of it. But it doesn't matter. What you call religious dogma is simply truth and science can certainly be built on truth.Cheers.

Well, our PREMISES will never meet with scientific approval of course, given the prejudices against the Bible. That's why we're looking to establish some of their outworkings as science. There's really no point in continuing to bring that up on this forum, though, where we're just a bunch of amateurs who like to think about the concepts, hoping they'll get grounded in science sometime in the future, not expecting scientific approval any time soon.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The way I understand this, and I would guess MJ as well, although he will have to say for himself, is that if interbreeding is possible at all that's probably the best indicator of a Kind because we assume that no amount of artificial methods would make it possible with anything outside the Kind; and we expect the problems of interbreeding between some varieties within the Kind for the very simple reason that we are breeding back formerly separated varieties of the Kind, which separation I would assume caused enough loss of genetic "fit," whatever that means, to make reproduction difficult, both conception and viable offspring.

This can easily bog down in semantics. I have adopted the practice of assuming that speciation occurs with every new identifiable phenotype, and that if it gets to the point of inability to interbreed that's just an extreme. We can see speciation at this level in domestic breeding of any animal, in which new phenotypes can be produced in a few generations. The splitting of populations and selection by various means artificial and natural DOES lead to new phenotypes and we might as well accept the term speciation for this process.Mutation is something else entirely; it's the only process by which genetic variability MIGHT be increased in a population. All the other processes of "speciation" decrease it over time. This is crucial for demonstrating that the very processes evolutionists call "processes of evolution" actually work against any kind of increase, which would seem to be necessary if evolution were true. They are left with mutation as the sole source of any conceivable increase.There's no point in fighting the nomenclature. We have to accept that what they call speciation is speciation --in fact I know I use it for lesser changes than they do -- and find other terms for what we are trying to say. I've found this works better for communication's sake.

I said MJ, not NJ. MJ agreed with me but we didn't discuss how we would explain WHY interbreeding should be the criterion, or why there would be problems between some individuals.