Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

quote:

---

Creationists don't know what the original kind is. Only that it can't be too off the mark of the present kinds.

---

So, to sum up, you're debating using "Argument from personal incredulity." Great. Do you have anything, then, to back up the notion that there is some sort of distinction between "kinds" which cannot be bridged by natural selection?I should start classifying my Framsticks-evolved creatures into "kinds". In my current sim, I've had "Diatoms", "Sinkers", "Bouncers", "Clappers", "Hoppers", and "Fumblers". They all look and behave quite differently. This message has been edited by Rei, 09-21-2004 03:09 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

1. I said Chimps and Bonobos (also known as Pygmy Chimpanzees), while they are apes they are not the only apes. I said nothing about Gorillas and Orangutans.2. We don't look similar to them? 2 legs, 2 arms, hands with 5 fingers, feet with 5 toes, no tails. If bears and dogs are the same "kind" based on their similarities why aren't humans and chimps?What are the similarities that make bears and dogs the same "kind"? Are cats members of this "kind"? Are weasels? Seals? why or why not?Loudmouth already covered the morphological similarities vs. DNA similarities in message 75.This message has been edited by DrJones*, 09-21-2004 03:21 PM

---

*not an actual doctor

That's not what we're talking about.We're talking about stupendous change indeed, for a few generations, and then little change at all. What stimulates this great change?

Since the Bible makes clear there are kinds then creationists and everyone have a boundary there somewhere. I guess its not impossible kinds could change but it seems the Bible has them in a fixed boundary. Also great differences would require great change and it seems fine to say most changes are micro level (though liberal) and not the great changes Toe requires.
i guess the micro/macro line is something Toe'ers can strike at but it misses the big picture. we are just accomadating small changes within our model (I would expand it) and forcing Toe to show real evidence for big changes.
Rob

True the Tasmanian wolf and our wolf looked similiar. I would say because they are the same creature.
That thier DNA is different (if so since the Tasmanian one is long time gone)could be accounted for by the marsupialism and other anatomical differences. But not different origin. I mean who knows what DNA really accounts for in its difference. Perhaps reproductive stuff counts for more.
I would add these two different wolves go to the heart of the matter.
If you could demostrate the wolfs coming from diferent rodent origins etc it would show great change. However thier similarity almost insists from our point of view that these creatures came off the Ark.
Rob

The separation of kinds in the Bible SEEMS to insist they can't be breached. And theres no evidence of note to suggest they have been as we see it.
Any separation of kind theefore we put under the label micro and it fits fine with observation and evidence. I myself expand it more then many creationists but perhaps they will come around under pressure of evidence and reason.
Rob

It is true about the seeming similarity between us and apes. well commented on since darwin.
Yet I would still say we don't look like them as they are animals in movement and form and we are graceful.
The sameness of dogs and bears is a lond subject and I just base on looks mostly and that it fits into kinds. It might be wrong but it seems reasonable also from the fossil record there seems to be overlap.Again our sameness with apes is from the same blueprint idea and in fact all animals look the same in one way or another. However no one ever mistakes a human for a monkey. And its because toes and fingers are only similiar looked at separately. In total the human body is different. Stance and use is also part of looks.
Rob

The changes after the Ark were so that the creatures obeyed God in filling and multiplying on earth. So if a island was reached that was difficult for others then that creature exploded into all niches. The fossil record shows this on the continents also and only later migrations destroyed the diversity.
The mechanism perhaps was a kind of natural selection however I think the mechanism for speciation has not yet been found and demonstrated although some speciation takes place under stress. I think stress is a small part of speciation for it always seems to me from my observation of the fossil record that speciation is a result of wealth not poverty. Many species are just leisure classes.
Rob

Speak for yourself - I'm pretty clumsy.And have you really never been to the zoo to see a gibbon? They average fourteen times as graceful as a ballet dancer!

quote:

---

Any separation of kind theefore we put under the label micro and it fits fine with observation and evidence.

---

So, in short, you define your limits on what can evolve based on a term you can't define.Care to get a little more specific, or should we reduce our arguments to one person shouting "Yes!" and the other "No!"?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

But what's the mechanism that causes the change? I mean, we've observed how the opening of new niches can cause rapid species change - that's the position of punctuated equilibrium - but the proposed rate of change you're describing is far, far more than punk eek can account for. So what's the additional mechanism? Of course it's been found. It's well-known that the mechanism of speciation is simply reprouctive isolation and the accumulation of mutations in the absence of gene flow. ?

And you think that this:is a better visual match than this?Do you maybe need to have your eyes checked?

Bears and dogs are the same "kind" because they look alike, in what ways? Please list the criteria that you used to determine that they look alike. So dogs and bears look alike and are therfore they same "kind" but even though apes and humans look alike they're not the same "kind" because they move differently? Thats ludicrous. How often have you mistaken a dog for a bear? or vice versa? What other animals are included in the dog/bear "kind"? How often do you confuse these animals with dogs and bears?

---

*not an actual doctor

quote:

---

The mechanism perhaps was a kind of natural selection however I think the mechanism for speciation has not yet been found and demonstrated although some speciation takes place under stress.

---

The mechanisms put forth by ToE have been observed. Has your mechanism ever been observed?

What is well known in Toe circles is just speculation in very small circles of thinkers. Creationist doctrine 101.
The observation of speciation has never been observed in all its glory to produce results that last in the natural world. Some cases of speciation are claimed here and there to have been observed and thats fine. However say on a island where one bird has speciated to fill many niches as occured as not been witnessed. In this complex world it is easily explained that the mechanism I need hasn't been discovered yet. Like blindness hasn't been cured yet.
Rob