"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

Hi herepton,On your first link there is a graphic suggesting that the hyaena is part of the "dog" kind. Can you explain how this is determined, and along with razd's question, what molecular process would prevent hyaenas arising via microevolution within (say) the cat kind?According to biological studies, hyaenas are very distant from dogs. Here's an example of a reasonable phylogeny for carnivora: Is the position of hyaenas in the baraminology of carnivores a mistake, and if so how would we spot it?Thanks!Mickedited to add a better picture for the carnivore phylogeny. Note that hayaena is actually on the cat branch. The biological features of hyenas are diagnostic of great similarity to cats, so the creationist wiki actually includes an example of macroevolution in a diagram aimed to show that only microevolution is possible!This message has been edited by mick, 10-23-2005 06:19 PM

Indeed, it took about a minute. Why did you post it if it's not something you agree with and is something that is plainly wrong? You posted the link without commentary so it is difficult to know that was your intention.I haven't actually proposed a model here but I assume you are referring to the model accepted by biologists in general. So you will have to see if the general biological model is as easy to dismantle as your cited reference. For example was 12 the wrong number of proteins? Are proteins not biological features of an orgnaism? Something wrong with cows being closer to whales than horses?MickThis message has been edited by mick, 10-23-2005 07:04 PM

Hi razd,If you want to talk logic, you might want to take a look at Herepton's maths. The model has been accepted by Herepton as false, so in his view the amount of sense it makes is zero.How zero can be "infinitely more" than something is beyond me.Naughty Herepton!Mick

Do you mean that the genetic code randomly mutates, or that genetic sequences randomly mutate?I'll provide some evidence for you if you can clarify the question.Best wishes,Mickadded in edit:I assume you mean the evolution of genetic sequences, because after reviewing your posts, the evolution of the genetic code would not be particularly relevant. A further question is, are you challenging the existence of mutations, or are you challenging their random nature? I will provide evidence as soon as you reply.This message has been edited by mick, 10-26-2005 08:42 PM

NOT IN THIS THREAD. IT IS NOT ABOUT MUTATIONS.

This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-27-2005 01:50 AM

Could you share it with me? What is wrong with whales being closer to cows than cows are to horses? I am not feigning anything. As I said, I'm not "playing stupid". It is unfair of you to assume that my stupidity is not genuine Without hesitation I challenged the YEC scheme by citing data that places hyenas with feline taxa. The biological characteristics of hyenas are diagnostic of greater similarity to cats than to dogs. I'm afraid this is a fact. If you don't agree with that, you should explain what the features are that allies hyenas with dogs, and why these features outweigh their similarity with felines. If you can't defend it, but continue to claim that I am being dishonest in some way, and that I have somehow "conceded your point", then it is clear you are unwilling to take part in a substantive debate. I refer you again to the cetacean/artiodactyl link. Now it may be you who is feigning ignorance here... I don't think you've refuted anything, you have provided an irrelevant quote from lewontin that doesn't represent my views in any way. You have provided not one piece of "falsifying evidence". Not one piece!Now let's consider your statement. "Evos assert we descended from chimps yet the DNA evidence says a resounding no". If you were willing to discuss that evidence, to provide a scrap of evidence in favour of this outrageous and bizarre assertion, we could have a substantive debate and you could redeem yourself to some extent. But if you simply make assertions like this, without any evidence whatsoever, and end your assertions with the statement "You are refuted" then it's clear that you aren't capable of debating in a reasonable manner.

Hi Ray, Now I really don't understand. Are you suggesting that the statements:"all species are transitional"and"whales are more biologically similar to cows than cows are to horses"are inconsistent?Mickps. you do realize that "all species are transitional" is an inference from the fact that there IS evidence to connect species in a hierarchical manner, not that there ISN'T. The fact of homology is a reason to suggest that all species are transitional, for example.Here's a blow up of my avatar: Each individual is from a different species. Time to put your money where your mouth is. Can you explain the homology of these species in a way that doesn't involve common descent and its corrollary, the transitionality of species?This message has been edited by mick, 10-27-2005 06:22 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 10-27-2005 06:32 PM

It must be nice to make your favoured hypothesis the null hypothesis. Very convenient!

See below. Macroevolution occurs, as you put it, step by step. There are fewer steps between cows and whales than between cows and horses. It's that simple. Horses share a common ancestor with the common ancestor of both cows and whales. It's that simple.Mickin edit: please bear in mind nobody is suggesting that "cows evolve from a whale". Lazy wording on your part.This message has been edited by mick, 10-28-2005 09:30 PM

Just made me laugh a bit. I thought it was worth repeating.Mickps. I will bring it up as a special motion at the next communist international. I can tell you that the biologists at my university are pooping their pants right now. We could have handled a small Creationist website... but a large one???This message has been edited by mick, 11-06-2005 09:41 PM

Life is pretty hard for us communist atheist evolutionist darwinist scumbags right now. We spend most of our time dreading that killer online article titled "Darwin refuted". The whole thing is going to collapse like a house of cards.I'm seriously thinking about moving into real estate or investment banking. At least we know that the economy is real, not just a figment of our imagination.This message has been edited by mick, 11-06-2005 09:56 PM

Great! An accurate chain/tree and a macroevolution theory that makes perfect sense. We finally got somewhere!