A good question; my first thought: a possible mechanism would utilize a "kind"-specific subset of absolutely mutation-proof genes, perhaps involved in reproduction. These genes would represent the signature for each "kind" and thus define each kind.
I'm going to be very lazy and not look anything up. This is off the top of my head.
The mutation-proof genes you want are there! As I recall there are certain processes involved with cell division that are very, very common (not exactly mutation proof but nearly). They are so crucial that if they mutate the result is selected out.
So these define "kind" as you have suggested.
However, it seems that all forms of life carry them.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-05-2004 08:16 PM
Could we have the context and the complete Lewontin quote to determine just what he was really saying?
I've seen too many creationist quote mines to take anything at face value.
Of course, one could interpret the first part as writen; that is up to the second elipsis. We are forced by the evidence to accept quantum mechanics and general relativity. They are about as counter intuitive as I can conceive of.
The rest of the quote is on the other side of a second elipsis. I am very suspicious of that.
ABE I found enough. The quote is approximately correct but I don't have all the context.
It is deep enough that this topic is not the place to discuss it. If you think it is germane a topic in "Is It Science?" would be appropriate.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-24-2005 07:05 PM
It is evolutionists who assert the genetic code randomly mutates, rather it MUST since no other explanation of living things exists. Now, here we are again, where is the evidence of this besides educational credentials asserting this as fact ?
Since the nature of mutations is a rather large topic discussed elsewhere AND since it has been shown that the code does, in fact, randomly mutate perhaps you could take that to another topic.
You might further this one by sticking to the Meyr point that you posted. If there is a barrier: What is it?
You posted a quote suggesting that there is a barrier. Such a mechanism is what this thread is about.
Yes, all species are in a state of transition, at issue is macro transition.
Agreed that macro evolution is the issue.
Just what, then, do you define as macro evolution. Where is the dividing line between micro and macro? The dividing line will not be delineated by picking two examples that are on opposite sides of it and far from it. It will gradually be deliminated if you supply a number of examples that are just on one side and the other of the line between macro and micro.
Once you have supplied what you mean by the term we can carry on.
Using the biological definition it has been shown to occur so I'm sure you are not using that definition. We will need to see just what you do mean.
Besides, the issue is also for you to show what it is that could stop any level of "macro" evolution. If as you claim without support that it doesn't occur; just why doesn't it?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-28-2005 12:29 AM
How could cows be closer to whales rather than horses IF step by tiny step macroevolution is true ? This becomes a monkey wrench in the mix.
I have no clue why you think that step by step evolution means that cows can't be closer to whales than horses. It doesn't follow at all.
How did cows evolve from a whale and horses did not get between ?
Why would horses get in between? If an ancestor of cows/whales splt from the horse ancestor before the whale lineage and the cow lineage split then horses are not in between.
All you could be saying is that the cow/horse split later than the whales split off. What evidence to you have to support that?
I hope you aren't looking at a horse and a cow and then concluding based on that look that they have to be closer than cow and whale (which might be true but you sure would be making a mistake to make that judgment by looking at pictures of them). If you are doing this then you need to back WAAAAAY off and learn a lot more before you engage in the discussion at his level.
Since nothing in your post makes any sense at all and avoids touching on the questions at hand it is clear that continueing to converse with you is a waste of time.
"The belief that living things originate from other livings and not ultimately from the God of Genesis." [source: Dr. Scott]
Also I note your definition of "macroevolution" given in the previous post is useless. Whether the ultimate source is God or not has nothing useful to say about the change in life-forms on the planet that we observe since it's inception.
Of course, we know that living things originate from other living things. We can continue to believe this AND believe that they utimately originated from God. So the definition is useless for the discussion we are attempting to have.
The definition you have given is not related the biological question at all. Given that we see life forms arising from others it is clear that, whatever the ultimate source, they do arise from one another. Given that we see new forms (species and genera at least) it is also clear that something above "microevolution" happens.
I am not 100 % sure but I'm pretty darned sure that the "kinds" issue is the end result of some history.
I think it is clear from the Bible that "kind" there means species. And I understand that is what it was taken as all through history up until around the mid 20th century.
Then things went a bit awry: speciation has been shown to occur. That is when the literalists got into a tizzy and their definition of "kind" moved up and down the taxonomic levels. In fact, they seem to have either learned that they mustn't define it too carefully so it can be falsified or want it at several levels at once: high so it is harder to show in a short time and low enough to separate the other apes and us.