Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

well, technically, science has a defintion. It's just that the creationists don't like it.For us, macro is the accumulation of micro over time--close enough, at any rate.For them, macro is evolution outside of kind, or the new one, body plan.But, it seems like we've a defintion of kind.Kind--the group of organisms that share a common ancestor due to the ability to interbreed and produce offspring (no matter if by artificial means (like chimp sperm plus human egg, or even, dandelion egg with human sperm, and no matter how viable the offspring is).it's something they, and we can test. And I'm pretty sure we'll have something outside of Kind inside of one--they don't want dog and cat mixed, but gee golly, what if they can interbreed? The last part to be added is the body plan as part of kind, and only mjfloresta seems to have any clue as to what he means by it, other than the subjective intuitiveness of body plan--otherwise dolphins are fish.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

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

well, I guess you can stop arguing that macroevolution has never occurred, huh? After all, no point in it, right? because it has no clearly defined terms, right?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

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

Good point. this is yet another good argument in favor of the point of view that the earth must be very old indeed (billions of years), in order for all the observed species to have had time to evolve.

your post is a little screwy--that last section--word for word is by me, and no quote? I'm assuming typo, and I don't know why you brought that up. Could you please explain--perhaps it has to deal with the masking proof part?onwards not true. The last part in the defintion of species by the biological species concept is that the two related species cannot produce viable offspring if crossed. take a look at the list of hybrids in my list here at post 140:http://EvC Forum: Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution -->EvC Forum: Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolutionnotice that there are inter genus crosses and inter familial crosses. normal hybrids, like the mule or tion or liger, are inter-specie crosses.the defintion of kind that has been hammered out makes it so that they are related no matter if the offspring are viable. that makes it quite different from the species definition (biological species concept).One last thing--you quote me saying "for then, macro becomes . . ."
There is a typo. It should read "for them, . . ." That typo is my fault. Maybe that clarifies what I was meaning?going to fix it now.ABE: I'm feeling like Gandalf now. One PS after another after another.when you state that we have only made sub-species, that too, is wrong. Here's why:
Observed Instances of Speciationthese are more than just the creation of sub-species. we have real speciation--what you all love to call micro evolution.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Who has been trying to create new species? How long have they been trying (assuming we can identify any such people at all)? Billions of species? Really? Sez who?

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.

not sure of the meaning of your post here, Faith.NJ was saying that the defintion of kind we worked out was that of a species--on which count he is wrong.when you write , do you mean mjfloresta, or nemessis_jauggernaut? Because I thought mjfloresta agreed with you on this, or rather, you with him. (that is, agreeing about your understanding of the Kind and interbreeding and common ancestry that you delineate in the recent post)

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

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

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'm not agruing, I'm educating.

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.

okay. I just know that some users abbreviate nemesis juggernaut to NJ, which is only a slight click away from MJ.that's all. that helps.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

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