"Macro" Evolution: Mules and Ring Species

[Phred]

Speaking of imagination, every living thing on earth except insects and spiders all went through gradual change over millions of years from some sort of fish to where we are now? Now that takes imagination. All the stories about ANY fossil ever found will always be filled with, might have, could have, possibly, maybe. Some of us dont accept those just so stories filled with assumptions and speculation, especially since they are based on a presuppositon to the ToE.

So what do you think happened to all those organisms represented by those fossils?

 

[AV1611VET]

So what do you think happened to all those organisms represented by those fossils?

They only exist on paper, like 99.999999999999999999% of everything else evolution dreams up.

 

[Phred]

Macroevolution, as far as I am concerned is one genus giving rise to another genus.

I made the statement that if a Macropus gave birth to a Camelus, that I would consider macroevolution for one yoctosecond.

His response was that no one would ever predict that.

Thus I assume he is agreeing with me that I would never see that; and so I won't even have to give macroevolution a yoctosecond; which to me, would be a big waste of time.

So you tell us what evolution is, tell us it's wrong and then wonder why we think you're an idiot.

As far as I'm concerned the only guys in the world named Jesus are from Puerto Rico and since nobody from Puerto Rico could ever get to the Middle East 2,000 years ago there's no way Jesus could have existed.

If you can do it so can I.

 

[Phred]

They only exist on paper, like 99.999999999999999999% of everything else evolution dreams up.

I thought you liked things that only existed on paper. Or is your Bible printed on something else?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you tell us what evolution is, tell us it's wrong and then wonder why we think you're an idiot.

I don't need to discuss evolution for you guys to think I'm an idiot.

I just need to display the right icon.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought you liked things that only existed on paper.

Believe me, science is written with a pencil that has a huge eraser.

By contrast:

Job 19:23 ¶ Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!
Job 19:24 That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!

 

[Redac]

Macroevolution, as far as I am concerned is one genus giving rise to another genus.

I made the statement that if a Macropus gave birth to a Camelus, that I would consider macroevolution for one yoctosecond.

His response was that no one would ever predict that.

Thus I assume he is agreeing with me that I would never see that; and so I won't even have to give macroevolution a yoctosecond; which to me, would be a big waste of time.

If a kangaroo ever gave birth to a camel, the current theory of evolution would be shown to be wrong. When this doesn't happen, you claim that it means "macroevolution" is wrong, and thus you can continue to hold onto your current beliefs. Kind of a win-win for you, I guess.

 

[AV1611VET]

If a kangaroo ever gave birth to a camel, the current theory of evolution would be shown to be wrong. When this doesn't happen, you claim that it means "macroevolution" is wrong, and thus you can continue to hold onto your current beliefs. Kind of a win-win for you, I guess.

I prefer to win with This:

 

[OllieFranz]

Macroevolution, as far as I am concerned is one genus giving rise to another genus.

I made the statement that if a Macropus gave birth to a Camelus, that I would consider macroevolution for one yoctosecond.

His response was that no one would ever predict that.

Thus I assume he is agreeing with me that I would never see that; and so I won't even have to give macroevolution a yoctosecond; which to me, would be a big waste of time.

Is it so hard for you to accept that an early panther population in what is now Pakistan, might have spread out some going into the jungles of India, some into the grasses of the Steppes and some into the deserts of the middle East. That the one's spots would have darkened and lengthened, eventually becoming the stripes of the tiger, that the second would retain the spots and become leopards, and third lose the spots altogether and become lions. Or as the leopard moved north into Siberia it would lose its tawny color to better blend into the winter snowscape?

If you can accept this then you agree with Evolution, even if you choose to believe the foolishness that anti-Evolutionists spout to be part of Evolution

So, for you, then, "Macro-evolution" means the crazy predictions that only rabid anti-evolutionists claim that evolution predicts. Everything else is "Micro-evolution" and is true. Congratulations! You have just pushed the entire concept of "Macro-evolution" into the realm of self-delusion, and have accepted the science of Evolution.

Or are you really trying to say that no genus ever arose from another? Are you really claiming that the leopard is related to the lion, the tiger, and the jaguar (all genus Panthera), but totally unrelated to the snow leopard (genus Uncia) or the clouded leopard (genus Neofelis)?

Someone else asked about your insistence that species could split but genuses couldn't, a couple of pages back, using canine examples. The same question can be asked using any number of Families, or even Orders whose species are clearly related.

Evolution does not work on the individual level over one generation, it works on the population level, over multiple -- a hundred or more -- generations. Even after all those years, and all those generations,a horse and a donkey are just barely separate species, but you would never confuse one for the other or expect a stallion and a mare to produce a donkey. That ship has sailed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it so hard for you to accept that an early panther population in what is now Pakistan, might have spread out some going into the jungles of India, some into the grasses of the Steppes and some into the deserts of the middle East.

No, it is not hard for me to accept that.

But may I ask you a question?

Do you understand what I mean when I say, 'gives birth to' in my posts?

Or are you just here to insult and ridicule?

I couldn't care less if a genus enters another ecological niche and becomes another genus.

I'm more interested in a genus giving birth to another genus.

 

[Freodin]

No, it is not hard for me to accept that.

But may I ask you a question?

Do you understand what I mean when I say, 'gives birth to' in my posts?

Or are you just here to insult and ridicule?

I couldn't care less if a genus enters another ecological niche and becomes another genus.

I'm more interested in a genus giving birth to another genus.

How do you suppose a "genus" does either... ""giving birth" or "entering another ecological niche and becomming another genus"?

 

[OllieFranz]

No, it is not hard for me to accept that.

But may I ask you a question?

Do you understand what I mean when I say, 'gives birth to' in my posts?

Or are you just here to insult and ridicule?

I couldn't care less if a genus enters another ecological niche and becomes another genus.

I'm more interested in a genus giving birth to another genus.

What you are describing is not Evolution. It is nonsense. Only rabid anti-evolutionists claim that evolution makes any claims anything like that.

A genus is not an individual. It does "give birth." An individual member of a genus gives birth, but it does not give birth to a member of a different species, much less a different genus. Evolution is a process that takes generations to occur. It takes more than just one mutation. It takes the time (and generations) for that mutation to spread through the entire population (Assuming it gives those with it an advantage over those without -- if it gives a disadvantage it will not spread and will eventually die out) Plus it takes enough different mutations, each having had time to spread out in the population to make it difficult or impossible to cross-breed with another population with its own mutations in that time. Re-read the description of a Ring Species from my OP

Genus splitting is an arbitrary function of man's need to classify. All it means is that someone thought two species are now so different they can't be considered to be first-degree cousins any more, and have become second degree cousins. As speciation continues, it is just a matter of time.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you suppose a "genus" does either... ""giving birth" or "entering another ecological niche and becomming another genus"?

The former I have no idea, as I don't think it happens, but if it should, I'll reluctantly consider giving one yoctosecond of my posting career here to cogitating on it; and the latter -- I'll say again -- I couldn't care less.

 

[AV1611VET]

A genus is not an individual. It does "give birth." An individual member of a genus gives birth, but it does not give birth to a member of a different species, much less a different genus. Evolution is a process that takes generations to occur. It takes more than just one mutation. It takes the time (and generations) for that mutation to spread through the entire population (Assuming it gives those with it an advantage over those without -- if it gives a disadvantage it will not spread and will eventually die out) Plus it takes enough different mutations, each having had time to spread out in the population to make it difficult or impossible to cross-breed with another population with its own mutations in that time. Re-read the description of a Ring Species from my OP

Genus splitting is an arbitrary function of man's need to classify. All it means is that someone thought two species are now so different they can't be considered to be first-degree cousins any more, and have become second degree cousins. As speciation continues, it is just a matter of time.

Oooookay -- thank you for the 411.

(Tomorrow I'll probably have forgotten everything you just said.)

In the meantime, anything else I can't help you with, or are we done now?

 

[OllieFranz]

Oooookay -- thank you for the 411.

(Tomorrow I'll probably have forgotten everything you just said.)

In the meantime, anything else I can't help you with, or are we done now?

OK let me put it in simpler terms.

You say I can't accept X because X claims Y and Y is false.

We say, yes, Y is false, but that's not what X claims. X claims Z

You say, OK, I can believe Z but I can't accept X because X claims Y and Y is false.

<FACEPALM>

 

[Freodin]

The former I have no idea, as I don't think it happens, but if it should, I'll reluctantly consider giving one yoctosecond of my posting career here to cogitating on it; and the latter -- I'll say again -- I couldn't care less.

Say, are your textual posts just another form of your counting threads... empty words stringed together to raise your post number... or are you trying to say something in these posts?

If the later, you should consider thinking about your line of reasoning a little more before posting... else "facepalm" is indeed the only reaction that you can expect.

Let´s recapitulate the last few exchanges.

You: "Do you understand what I mean when I say 'give birth' in my posts?"

Me: (Hm, not really. I have some ideas but I want AV to clarify them. So I ask: ) "How do you supppose it works?"

You: "I don´t understand it either... but I don´t care."


AV, contrary what you like to claim: you are not ridiculed because you sport a Christian icon, but because of the nonsense you post.