Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 6:40 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, jar (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,868 Year: 8,904/19,786 Month: 1,326/2,119 Week: 86/576 Day: 86/50 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
16171819Next
Author Topic:   Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution
qed
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 284 (344128)
08-28-2006 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by mjfloresta
08-28-2006 12:59 AM


The Definitions thread??
quote:
"microevolution is the necessary mechanism in the case of the flood. Why so? Because if all of the kinds were present on the ark, the amount of variation necessary to result in today's species is relatively little, and well within the observed range of variation for a species, as I will show."

So what is Microevolution, i know many examples have been given but to
discuss it further a hard (creationist) definition is neeeded. The evolutionary definition is evolution within a species but not leading to a divergent species. This obviously fails to allow the creation of new species from the kinds within the ark, so...

quote:
microevolution is the necessary mechanism

Important to note that in traditional science micro and macro evo relate only to degrees of evolution having the same mechanism.

Edited by qed, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 12:59 AM mjfloresta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 1:31 AM qed has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 212 of 284 (344131)
08-28-2006 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by mjfloresta
08-28-2006 12:59 AM


Response please
I am still interested in your response to Message 5.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 12:59 AM mjfloresta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 1:41 AM nwr has responded
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 1:42 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 4156 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 213 of 284 (344135)
08-28-2006 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by qed
08-28-2006 1:18 AM


Re: The Definitions thread??
Microevolution, on the other hand, simply refers to the diversification of a population due to variation of the genetic material (caused by recombination, genetic drift, chromosomal translocations, possibly (although I have my doubts) mutations)...

This was my definition from the opening post. All this means is that variation within the population that leads to different allelic frequencies is microevolution. A single generation represents microevolution because the offspring represents genetic variation from the parents.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by qed, posted 08-28-2006 1:18 AM qed has not yet responded

    
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 4156 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 214 of 284 (344137)
08-28-2006 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by nwr
08-28-2006 1:24 AM


Re: Response please
From which of the kinds on Noah's ark, do you suppose that the following animals evolved:

kangaroo
platypus
koala
panda
sloth
komodo dragon

I addressed this already somewhere in this thread (specifically by example or generically i don't remember) but I'm not surprised if you missed it among the flood (not The Flood, just the flood of posts, :)

It is likely that each of the species that you mention are representative of kinds that are no longer well represented - the other member species disappeared by extinction. In these cases, the sloth or the kangaroo likely are the lone living representatives of their respective kinds, thus they are isolated taxonomically or whatever your method of classification.

Imagine that all primate went extinct except for one species - say the marmoset. Marmorsets would be in the same situation as the species you mentioned, seemingly alone on the taxonomic tree.

As far as assuming ancestry, I don't see how that is possible since the kinds are so poorly represented.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 1:24 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 1:51 AM mjfloresta has responded
 Message 223 by RickJB, posted 08-28-2006 3:03 AM mjfloresta has not yet responded
 Message 235 by Quetzal, posted 08-28-2006 9:52 AM mjfloresta has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 215 of 284 (344138)
08-28-2006 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by nwr
08-28-2006 1:24 AM


Re: Response please
I think MJ answered the essence of your question in an answer to someone else in Message 65

in regard to the various species you've listed; I assume you raise these examples because they are taxonomically rather distinct - little islands unto themselves...Therefore where do they fit in?

I think it's likely that there are many kinds that are poorly represented today: The fossil record indicates a tremendous amount of extinction; Therfore, the examples you have raised likely are the lone representatives of their kind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 1:24 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 216 of 284 (344140)
08-28-2006 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by mjfloresta
08-28-2006 1:41 AM


Re: Response please
It is likely that each of the species that you mention are representative of kinds that are no longer well represented - the other member species disappeared by extinction.

Then I will take it that you have no answer.

The important thing about the creatures I mentioned, is that where they lived is very far from the middle east, and there is no evidence of any close relative any where near where Noah is supposed to have populated his ark. The very existence of such creatures already demonstrates that the idea of a global flood is no more than myth or fable. Thus it is no surprise that you are unable to provide a suitable explanation, consistent with the flood story, of how there could be such creatures.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 1:41 AM mjfloresta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 1:57 AM nwr has responded
 Message 218 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 2:01 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 217 of 284 (344143)
08-28-2006 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by nwr
08-28-2006 1:51 AM


You are now off topic
He answered you sufficiently in the context of the topic of this thread, so you cannot say he had no answer. You are raising another topic that has been discussed on many other threads, about how the various animals got dispersed throughout the earth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 1:51 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 2:06 AM Faith has responded

    
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 4156 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 218 of 284 (344144)
08-28-2006 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by nwr
08-28-2006 1:51 AM


Re: Response please
It is likely that each of the species that you mention are representative of kinds that are no longer well represented - the other member species disappeared by extinction.

Then I will take it that you have no answer.
The important thing about the creatures I mentioned, is that where they lived is very far from the middle east, and there is no evidence of any close relative any where near where Noah is supposed to have populated his ark. The very existence of such creatures already demonstrates that the idea of a global flood is no more than myth or fable. Thus it is no surprise that you are unable to provide a suitable explanation, consistent with the flood story, of how there could be such creatures.

What? What you say makes no sense at all
I have no idea what you are saying or why it constitutes the proof that you claim it does. Perhaps you could make a few more connections with what you're saying and the proof that you say you're providing.

Edited by mjfloresta, : Proper quotation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 1:51 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 219 of 284 (344146)
08-28-2006 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
08-28-2006 1:57 AM


I was right on topic
He answered you sufficiently in the context of the topic of this thread,

No. He gave a vague handwaving response which simply evaded the question.

You are raising another topic that has been discussed on many other threads, about how the various animals got dispersed throughout the earth.

No. This is about creatures that could not possibly be explained by micro-evolution from what was plausibly on the ark. It is very much on topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 1:57 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 2:40 AM nwr has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 220 of 284 (344155)
08-28-2006 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by nwr
08-28-2006 2:06 AM


Re: I was right on topic
He answered you sufficiently in the context of the topic of this thread,

No. He gave a vague handwaving response which simply evaded the question.

There was nothing handwaving about it, just as most of what evos call handwaving isn't. He answered you according to the most reasonable GENETIC explanation for the rarity of the creatures named. GENETICS, inheritance, evolution is the topic of the thread. Why we don't find a lot of other varieties of the same Kinds. Well, geographic dispersion MAY have something to do with why, but whatever the cause of it, the effect was EXTINCTION. It's a reasonable answer.

You are raising another topic that has been discussed on many other threads, about how the various animals got dispersed throughout the earth.

No. This is about creatures that could not possibly be explained by micro-evolution from what was plausibly on the ark. It is very much on topic.

I'm sorry, MJ's answer DOES explain how that could have happened in genetic terms. If you want to discuss geographic dispersion as such, start another thread.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 2:06 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by NosyNed, posted 08-28-2006 2:44 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 233 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 8:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 221 of 284 (344156)
08-28-2006 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
08-28-2006 2:40 AM


genetics?
He answered you according to the most reasonable GENETIC explanation for the rarity of the creatures named. GENETICS, inheritance, evolution is the topic of the thread.

Excuse me; haven't you said a number of times that you don't understand the genetic discussions that have been going on around here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 2:40 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 2:54 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 4156 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 222 of 284 (344161)
08-28-2006 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by NosyNed
08-28-2006 2:44 AM


Re: genetics?
Whoa...Give Faith some credit would you? It's clear to her as it is to me (as it should be to anyone who's paying attention) that since this is a genetic-based thread, nwr's post critique is outside of this discussion. A pH.d in genetics is hardly necessary to see that...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by NosyNed, posted 08-28-2006 2:44 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3153 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 223 of 284 (344166)
08-28-2006 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by mjfloresta
08-28-2006 1:41 AM


Re: Response please
Mjfloresta, you have a talent for making statements that sound clearly thought out, but are in fact devoid of content.

Mjfloresta writes:

It is likely that each of the species that you mention are representative of kinds that are no longer well represented..

Well represented? Do they exist or do they not? Did they exist at all? Where can evidence of them be found?

Mjfloresta writes:

In these cases, the sloth or the kangaroo likely are the lone living representatives of their respective kinds, thus they are isolated taxonomically..

What evidence makes this "likely"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 1:41 AM mjfloresta has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 3:22 AM RickJB has responded
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 4:29 AM RickJB has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 224 of 284 (344175)
08-28-2006 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by RickJB
08-28-2006 3:03 AM


Re: Response please
What evidence makes this "likely"?

It's a reasonable hypothesis based on the creationist model of all modern life forms having microevolved from the pairs that were on the ark, which is after all what is being argued here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by RickJB, posted 08-28-2006 3:03 AM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by RickJB, posted 08-28-2006 3:33 AM Faith has responded

    
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 225 of 284 (344177)
08-28-2006 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by mjfloresta
08-28-2006 12:59 AM


Suggestion
It looks like you need three threads:

Defining 'micro/macro evolution'
Defining biological 'kind'
Defining 'body plan'

Plus additional threads for any other terms that arise.

A thread you will likely need soon:

Establishing biological 'kind' for extinct organisms

Eventually you're going to have to address plate tectonic theory and the findings it comprises, along with ancient ecosystems and related topics.

You've set a huge task for yourself. Keep the coffee on.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 12:59 AM mjfloresta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 8:56 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
16171819Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019