Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 271 of 284 (344582)
08-29-2006 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2006 12:48 AM


Re: Wow
no. hybrids are not an example of macro evolution.
I was clarifying your misconception of the definition of the biological species concept. we have defined Kind in a slightly different way, making it far more encompassing than species. that's the point I was trying to get across. Not that a mule is an example of macro evolution. jeez.
chickens
Animalia Chordata Aves Galliformes Phasianidae Gallus gallus.
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus species
Animalia Chordata Aves Galliformes Numididae
guinea fowl
(abe: if too confusing, the chicken is on top, with it's full name, the fowl on bottom with as complete a name I found, and that line in the middle says what each name is in the Linnean classification system)
we have a cross between to separate families. One between Phas. and Numid.
that automatically means different species in different genera.
Which is why I told you to pay attention to the list of hybrids in my post 140, which I linked in the one you responded to, which is causing this response.
whether or not that interfamilial hybrid produces viable offspring is unknown to me, but they can, procreate.
just like a horse and a donkey can.
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 12:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 272 of 284 (344639)
08-29-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2006 12:21 AM


Re: Wow
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
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?
All the dog breeds are still very similar genetically, though they may look very different form each other. That's not the case when you compare similar species (like horses and donkeys). often times the two species don't even have the same number of cromossomes. As you pointed out, all these differences between closely related species would take time to acumulate.
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
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.
You can think whatever you want, it's a free country(world).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 12:21 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 284 (344705)
08-29-2006 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
08-29-2006 12:22 AM


Re: Wow
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.
The criteria for speciation is the formation of a new species as the result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other. That means that one subspecie branches off peripherally from the main population so that in the event the two come together again in a chance meeting, they will be different enough so as to be incapable of breeding with one another. But perhaps the reason why speciation is a bit of an ambiguous term is because there are four different types meaning different things to describe different events. Probably the most widely used is allopatric speciation that explains how any given sub-population can become isolated and develop new features. But this is a clear example of a microadaptive process, not macroevolution. So, I would like for someone to give clear examples of such a phenomena as macroevolution in nature. I mean, the inability to procreate should not be the sole reason for speciation. Case in point: A Great Dane and a Chihuahua may not be able to breed for anatomical reasons, but on the genetic level there should be no problem because they are both canine.
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.
I agree fully, which is why I mentioned mules in a previous post.
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.
Well, I think the term is misused just like the term 'evolution' is misused. Its crucial that these terms be clearly described and that there is a definate distinction made so the laymen won't be mislead to believe that because two finches have different colored beaks that it must somehow mean that the finch is also related to a nematode.

“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 message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 08-29-2006 12:22 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by fallacycop, posted 08-29-2006 5:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
clpMINI
Member (Idle past 5242 days)
Posts: 116
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Joined: 03-22-2005


Message 274 of 284 (344801)
08-29-2006 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Hyroglyphx
08-28-2006 11:39 PM


Then forget the micro and macro...
...and just focus on the evolution parts, and figure out if evolution is happening and if there are examples of it.
Then all you have to do is determine whether you think the small changes we can witness, can eventually accumulate into grander differences and explain the diversity of life. If you think that Geology is a load of crap and the earth is really young, then you probably can't imagine small changes we can witness would ever have produced the life we see today.
If scientist witness a new species of bacteria emerging in a lab, is that enough evidence, or do bacteria not really count? What will you consider to be good enough evidence for either side to be convincing?

I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-28-2006 11:39 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 6:03 PM clpMINI has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 275 of 284 (344827)
08-29-2006 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2006 11:21 AM


Gene flow
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
So, I would like for someone to give clear examples of such a phenomena as macroevolution in nature.
And I would like for someone to give a clear explanation of what is macroevolution because up to now this term means nothing to me.
I mean, the inability to procreate should not be the sole reason for speciation. Case in point: A Great Dane and a Chihuahua may not be able to breed for anatomical reasons, but on the genetic level there should be no problem because they are both canine.
I think you are missing the reason for taking reproductive viability as the criteria for speciation. It is not intended as a measure of how far apart genetically the two groups have become. The point is that once all reproduction between the two groups ceases, there will be no more gene flow between them and they will grow apart as different mutations acumulate over time. There have not been enough time for much genetic difference to acumulate between Chihuahuas and Great Danes. By the way, gene flow is still a possibility between them, eventhough they cannot mate direcly, because there are many intermediary breeds to bridge the gene flow gap, so you are right, they are both members of the same species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 11:21 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 284 (344829)
08-29-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by clpMINI
08-29-2006 5:01 PM


Re: Then forget the micro and macro...
all you have to do is determine whether you think the small changes we can witness, can eventually accumulate into grander differences and explain the diversity of life.
I did consider it. Don't you think that if these gradations took place that the earth has maintained some evidence of such? There are over a million fossil remains housed in various museums and universities the world over. None of them have been able to link one specie to the next. All we ever see is well-established organisms in full formation, not in any kind of transitional limbo. Out of millions of expamples, what are the odds that not one of them would yield some fruit for the theory? So, what compelling reason is there to assume that macroevoultion exists when its never been witnessed and its never been recorded in the fossil record?
If you think that Geology is a load of crap and the earth is really young, then you probably can't imagine small changes we can witness would ever have produced the life we see today.
There isn't anything crappy about Geology. What is crappy is how the usage of radiometric dating methods often employ circular reasoning.
If scientist witness a new species of bacteria emerging in a lab, is that enough evidence, or do bacteria not really count? What will you consider to be good enough evidence for either side to be convincing?
Its hard to say because there are no examples of such, therefore, its hard to imagine what it might look like. But, what seems reasonable is an organism that basically shares qualities with an entire population but has some unequivocal new features never seen before. For instance, Archaeopteryx is conceivably missing hundreds of links between avian and saurian. That is unless you think that rudimentary feathers, fully formed wings, different vascular, pulmonary, integumentary and digestive systems could be radically altered in one felled swoop of time. Then you have to consider why early Archeaopteryx benefited from his 'nubs' as his forelimbs were evolving into wings. What enhanced his survivability, rather than diminish his odds of selection? What prompted the changes to occur in the first place? On and on and on. Just saying, time + mutation + chance = evolution is too much brevity to entertain. That's as bad saying, "Godditit!" That's not enough. And neither explains anything.

“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 message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by clpMINI, posted 08-29-2006 5:01 PM clpMINI has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by kuresu, posted 08-29-2006 7:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 279 by fallacycop, posted 08-29-2006 7:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 284 by clpMINI, posted 08-30-2006 9:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hawks
Member (Idle past 6224 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 277 of 284 (344863)
08-29-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
08-28-2006 4:21 AM


Re: Response please
Forgive me if this point has already been brought up in this thread. I've skimmed through it, and might have missed somethings.
The main problem I see with your model is that it incorporates an intervening omnipotent supernatural creator. This creator created Earth ~6,000 years ago, created a world-wide flood somewhat later, resurrected someone dead 2,000 years ago, and performed quite a few more miracles. It would thus be fair to say that this creator is still active in the workings of this planet/universe.
For the simple fact that this creator can do anything, literally any evidence you could possibly find would be consistent a "bible" hypothesis. Wherever you look, you will find supporting evidence, since god can do anything. But in science, the strength of a theory does not only rest on its supporting evidence, the existence of the theory in the first place requires it to be falsifiable. If every single piece of evidence can be in accordance with a theory, it is hardly falsifiable. So, I ask, how is your model falsifiable?Moreover, how could it be falsified to the point of it being rejected?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 4:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 278 of 284 (344866)
08-29-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2006 6:03 PM


Re: Then forget the micro and macro...
must we repeat that we have transitionals.
not species to species, but we have the major evolutionary developments.
and you continue to mischaracterize what transitional means.
you seem to think it would mean that something would appear with half of something. that's not true.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 6:03 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 8:01 PM kuresu has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 279 of 284 (344872)
08-29-2006 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2006 6:03 PM


Re: Then forget the micro and macro...
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
There are over a million fossil remains housed in various museums and universities the world over. None of them have been able to link one specie to the next. All we ever see is well-established organisms in full formation, not in any kind of transitional limbo.
That's good then, because nobody should be expecting to find anything in that transitional limbo (wherever that is). If all species are continuosly evolving then all fossils should be expected to be well-established fully formed organisms.
So, what compelling reason is there to assume that macroevoultion exists when its never been witnessed and its never been recorded in the fossil record?
I've never seen a good definition of macroevolution. I see no good reason to reject my definition that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution put together, just as a thousand mile walk is just a lot of steps put together.
What is crappy is how the usage of radiometric dating methods often employ circular reasoning.
I don't know a single instance of that. would you care to elaborate?
If scientist witness a new species of bacteria emerging in a lab, is that enough evidence, or do bacteria not really count? What will you consider to be good enough evidence for either side to be convincing?
Its hard to say because there are no examples of such, therefore, its hard to imagine what it might look like.
How sure are you that that is the case? By the way, you didn't answer the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 6:03 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 8:14 PM fallacycop has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 284 (344874)
08-29-2006 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by kuresu
08-29-2006 7:40 PM


Re: Then forget the micro and macro...
must we repeat that we have transitionals.
not species to species, but we have the major evolutionary developments.
and you continue to mischaracterize what transitional means.
you seem to think it would mean that something would appear with half of something. that's not true.
No, I'm not mischaracterizing or embellishing what any reasonable person would expect to see. I wouldn't expect to see plantman and goatboy, I expect to see a stepwise graduation from one tier to the next. I would expect there to be some spottyness in the fossil record, but surely there should be at least one series of genera that we can clearly identify going through a series of speciation. But its not. Its all based upon inferences. And inferences are fine so long as there is some level of corroboration. I see no such corroboration for any macroevolutionary process. Apparently I'm not alone. I share this kinship with IDers and evolutionists.

“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 message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by kuresu, posted 08-29-2006 7:40 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by fallacycop, posted 08-29-2006 8:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 284 (344879)
08-29-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by fallacycop
08-29-2006 7:54 PM


Re: Then forget the micro and macro...
That's good then, because nobody should be expecting to find anything in that transitional limbo (wherever that is).
Where this limbo would be where all animals are, which is everywhere.
I've never seen a good definition of macroevolution. I see no good reason to reject my definition that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution put together, just as a thousand mile walk is just a lot of steps put together.
Theoretically, that sounds just wonderful and plausible. And there would be no way to account for that. Just like trying to watch your fingernails grow or watching your hair grow. You can't do it because the transitions are insensibly fine. Point taken. Here's the problem: When looking at the fossil record, there are hundreds of missiing links in between one specie to its supposed closest answer in the exact same way we find them today, which is completely separate-- so separate that one must wonder how they are ever related at all. If a dog became a bear or vice-versa, then clearly there should be some evidence. Concievably, there must have been thousands upon thousands of years of geologic record that has gone unaccounted for. Now, what are the odds that this phenomenon has happened over and over and over again? It doesn't add up. Yes, it sounds possible in theory, but the physical evidence doesn't support the assertion.

“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 message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by fallacycop, posted 08-29-2006 7:54 PM fallacycop has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 282 of 284 (344882)
08-29-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2006 8:01 PM


Re: Then forget the micro and macro...
I see no such corroboration for any macroevolutionary process
This definition of macroevolution better start coming sometime soon because I am starting to have trouble keeping my BS detector quiet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 8:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 6070 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 283 of 284 (344916)
08-29-2006 10:58 PM


My Closing Thoughts
This thread is coming to it's end; I think it's been a beneficial thread and hopefully we've made some real progress. I know many things have been left unanswered, unintentionally or due to a lack of time on my part. Or in some cases, questions were lost amid the rapidity with which this thread progressed.
Consequently, I would request that we use the final posts of this thread to come to conclusions on what we have discussed and to present the pertinent questions and ideas that have sprung from this thread (and there are many). I would request that these questions and ideas be posed within the context of their to this thread. For example, if you feel this question has implications for Plate Tectonic Theory, raise the question, and explain its relevance to this topic. At times, it has been asked of me in this thread why I haven't addressed this or that concept, and thus presented as proof of the paucity of the theory. In reality, any such topic either failed to see the relevance to this topic, or could not properly address within the context of this thread. It was/is not my topic to ignore or disregard such things, and be assured I am eager to address them in the proper thread.
Thank you all who contributed to this thread. It has been a pleasure..

  
clpMINI
Member (Idle past 5242 days)
Posts: 116
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Joined: 03-22-2005


Message 284 of 284 (345007)
08-30-2006 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2006 6:03 PM


Re: Then forget the micro and macro...
Don't you think that if these gradations took place that the earth has maintained some evidence of such? There are over a million fossil remains housed in various museums and universities the world over. None of them have been able to link one specie to the next.
There are plenty of threads about transitional fossils, whales, humans, horses...and probably others...check 'em out.
But I was actually thinking more along the changes we can observe in the lab or in the field today. If we see changes to a population, even very small ones, and these changes are heritable, do you consider that to be basic evolution? Forget micro- macro- garbage.
Because if you accept that these changes, then all you need is a timeframe large enough, and that is why I mentioned geology in a previous post. Do you think the earth is only 10,000ish years old, or up in the billions? Geology, physics, and cosmology all seem to think the earth is pretty darn old. And billions of years could give a long enough timeframe for the most minute of changes to accumulate and eventually have significant results.
Its hard to say because there are no examples of such, therefore, its hard to imagine what it might look like. But, what seems reasonable is an organism that basically shares qualities with an entire population but has some unequivocal new features never seen before.
So do bacteria count? Because I am pretty sure examples do exist and pretty much supply exactly what you want to see. A brand new characteristic that has never been seen before. But thats only if bacteria count.
~clpMINI
Edited by clpMINI, : No reason given.

I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2006 6:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024