Micro/Macro what's it all about?

[Jimmy D]

Creationists, would you agree that hypothetically this Hyracotherium evolving in to the modern horse below would be classed as macro evolution?

 

[createdtoworship]

Creationists, would you that this Hyracotherium evolving in to the modern horse below would be classed as macro evolution?

It does not appear to be of the equestrian family, but it was the size of a dog. Again I would have to know what two types of animals this was a transition between. It doesn't really even look like a dog, or a horse. It seems to be it's own family. In order to be a macro evolutionary example it must have ties to two distinct types of animals. At this point I would not know what two types of animals this was. I don't tend to honor the most recent changes in taxonomy, accept with newer species. As they can be biased toward evolution, but use lineas original taxonomy of animals as a reference point of what genra are what. Typically if an animal cannot mate with two genra, it would not be an intermediary, I wouldn't think as you could never prove it was from two different animal types. A prime example would be an animal that could mate with two different types of animals. Apes and humans for example. That would be a proper evidence of macro evolution. Good luck with proving evolution, you'll need it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Thanks for taking the time to answer Gradyll.

Again I would have to know what two types of animals this was a transition between. It doesn't really even look like a dog, or a horse. It seems to be it's own family.

More or less accurate to my limited knowledge, here's a better description of the beasts, it seems that the particular critter depicted is a member of the extinct Hyracotherium genus.

In order to be a macro evolutionary example it must have ties to two distinct types of animals.

You don't think the modern horse is a distinct type (kind) of animal to the Hyracotherium?
They are classed are members of the the same order Perissodactyla (including rhinos, tapirs etc) but are different genus, family, genus & species.

At this point I would not know what two types of animals this was. I don't tend to honor the most recent changes in taxonomy, accept with newer species. As they can be biased toward evolution, but use lineas original taxonomy of animals as a reference point of what genra are what. Typically if an animal cannot mate with two genra, it would not be an intermediary, I wouldn't think as you could never prove it was from two different animal types. A prime example would be an animal that could mate with two different types of animals.

I'm not sure what you talking about here, or how it's relevant to the question. No animal can mate with "two genera" can it?

I'm not trying to prove that the Hyracotherium is the ancestor of the modern horse, I'm trying to figure out what creationists mean when they talk about the difference between micro and macro-evolution and how the latter is impossible.

A prime example would be an animal that could mate with two different types of animals. Apes and humans for example.

Human are apes.

Good luck with proving evolution, you'll need it.

Nah, it's been settled for a century, but that is not the point of the question.

 

[createdtoworship]

Thanks for taking the time to answer Gradyll.



More or less accurate to my limited knowledge, here's a better description of the beasts, it seems that the particular critter depicted is a member of the extinct Hyracotherium genus.



You don't think the modern horse is a distinct type (kind) of animal to the Hyracotherium?
They are classed are members of the the same order Perissodactyla (including rhinos, tapirs etc) but are different genus, family, genus & species.



I'm not sure what you talking about here, or how it's relevant to the question. No animal can mate with "two genera" can it?

I'm not trying to prove that the Hyracotherium is the ancestor of the modern horse, I'm trying to figure out what creationists mean when they talk about the difference between micro and macro-evolution and how the latter is impossible.



Human are apes.



Nah, it's been settled for a century, but that is not the point of the question.

sorry for lack of time, I cannot reply to all of it, but the horse would be of the genus "equus"

so there would be no relation to horse. See you cannot claim that one genus evolves into another genus without evidence. The only way that I know of would be a transition between the two genra, and an animal that is related to two genus's. But that's not how taxonomy normally works, because like I said, evolution doesn't work. At least on a macro level. species can change into other species as in speciation and ring species, but genus's cannot change into other genus's that I know of. So in a similiar way that speciation is proven, you would need to prove genriation (thats my new term for macro evolution) genriation. Sort of like speciation but on a macro level. Two different kinds of animals.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists, would you agree that this Hyracotherium evolving in to the modern horse below would be classed as macro evolution?

No.

Did you know: The type species, H. leporinum, is now regarded as a paleothere, rather than a horse proper.

SOURCE

 

[Jimmy D]

sorry for lack of time, I cannot reply to all of it, but the horse would be of the genus "equus"

No problem.

so there would be no relation to horse. See you cannot claim that one genus evolves into another genus without evidence.

I didn't claim that.

I asked if it would be an example of what creationists say is macroevolution.

Sheesh. I'll go back and edit the OP to say "hypothetically".

so there would be no relation to horse. See you cannot claim that one genus evolves into another genus without evidence.

I am not claiming that anything evolved into anything.

I asked if it would be an example of what creationists say is macro-evolution. Creationists say that macro-evolution is impossible, I'm just exploring that claim.

The only way that I know of would be a transition between the two genra, and an animal that is related to two genus's. But that's not how taxonomy normally works, because like I said, evolution doesn't work. At least on a macro level.

Maybe it's your wording, but this doesn't make sense to me.

species can change into other species as in speciation and ring species,

Yes, that's what the Theory of Evolution suggests.

but genus's cannot change into other genus's that I know of.

I think I see what you're getting at now. It seems that you are implying that this can't happen over the course of a few generations?

So in a similiar way that speciation is proven, you would need to prove genriation (thats my new term for macro evolution) genriation

Great! So as the two beasts pictured above are of different genera you would agree that if one was descended from the other it would be described as macro evolution?

 

[Jimmy D]

No.

Why not?

SOURCE

Yeah, I know.

 

[Rubiks]

Creationists have more faith in evolution than evolutionists themselves. They hypothesize super-fast evolution that occurred after Noah's ark.

 

[tas8831]

Creationists, would you agree that hypothetically this Hyracotherium evolving in to the modern horse below would be classed as macro evolution?

No no no.
Creationist immunopharmacologist Caroline Crocker explained to her class as George mason that the hyracotherium fossils are just the modern day hyrax.

 

[createdtoworship]

No problem.



I didn't claim that.

I asked if it would be an example of what creationists say is macroevolution.

Sheesh. I'll go back and edit the OP to say "hypothetically".



I am not claiming that anything evolved into anything.

I asked if it would be an example of what creationists say is macro-evolution. Creationists say that macro-evolution is impossible, I'm just exploring that claim.



Maybe it's your wording, but this doesn't make sense to me.



Yes, that's what the Theory of Evolution suggests.



I think I see what you're getting at now. It seems that you are implying that this can't happen over the course of a few generations?



Great! So as the two beasts pictured above are of different genera you would agree that if one was descended from the other it would be described as macro evolution?

sir, thanks for the response. Macro evolution has been defined as evolution "above the level of species." This animal does not have roots to any other animal, so it is unclear if it would be an example of macro evolution as there is not enough facts about it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No.


SOURCE

I think you're misunderstanding the question. (Or I am.) You seem to agree that the first critter shown is not a horse.

So if. Hypothetically if. If one could demonstrate this non-horse had horse descendants, would that be an example of macroevolution? Would that be one kind transforming into another ('macroevolution') or is it just one kind getting taller ('microevolution').

 

[createdtoworship]

I think you're misunderstanding the question. (Or I am.) You seem to agree that the first critter shown is not a horse.

So if. Hypothetically if. If one could demonstrate this non-horse had horse descendants, would that be an example of macroevolution? Would that be one kind transforming into another ('macroevolution') or is it just one kind getting taller ('microevolution').

that would be macro evolution. But taxonomy doesn't work that way, and neither does evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

I think you're misunderstanding the question. (Or I am.) You seem to agree that the first critter shown is not a horse.

So if. Hypothetically if. If one could demonstrate this non-horse had horse descendants, would that be an example of macroevolution? Would that be one kind transforming into another ('macroevolution') or is it just one kind getting taller ('microevolution').

Well, I'm glad some one understood what I was getting at.

 

[Jimmy D]

sir, thanks for the response. Macro evolution has been defined as evolution "above the level of species." This animal does not have roots to any other animal, so it is unclear if it would be an example of macro evolution as there is not enough facts about it.

I repeat, I'm not saying that one evolved into the other (I believe it did but that's not the point).

I'm just wondering if it was claimed that it did, would that be an example of macro-evolution?

 

[Jimmy D]

No no no.
Creationist immunopharmacologist Caroline Crocker explained to her class as George mason that the hyracotherium fossils are just the modern day hyrax.

So surely that would be a yes? A hyrax type creature evolving into a horse would be an example of macro-evolution?

 

[Jimmy D]

Ok, here we have a few more examples of odd-toed ungulates. Assuming that they are related, would Creationists think that the differences in these critters could be accounted for by micro evolution?


Hyracotherium

Orrohippus

Epihippus

 

[xianghua]

Creationists have more faith in evolution than evolutionists themselves. They hypothesize super-fast evolution that occurred after Noah's ark.

no. its actually speciation and not evolution. speciation is just a variation of exist creature (all species of cats for instance).

 

[AV1611VET]

So if. Hypothetically if. If one could demonstrate this non-horse had horse descendants, would that be an example of macroevolution? Would that be one kind transforming into another ('macroevolution') or is it just one kind getting taller ('microevolution').

I'm sure scientists could demonstrate it, since it's all on paper.

So I'll say YES, macroevolution has been demonstrated on paper.

BUT ... if this animal and a horse have two different genera, then one has been mislabeled.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, I'm glad some one understood what I was getting at.

Don't worry Jimmy your point and question were well understood, their presentation clear. Unfortunately to properly relate to the question requires two things: an open mind; an accurate understanding of the basic elements of taxonomy. If either of those are absent your question can appear ambiguous, or even meaningless.

(I suspect you already knew that, but I was feeling lonely and just wanted to talk to someone. )

 

[AV1611VET]

I repeat, I'm not saying that one evolved into the other (I believe it did but that's not the point).

I'm just wondering if it was claimed that it did, would that be an example of macro-evolution?

Yes.