Micro/Macro what's it all about?

[AV1611VET]

Hyracotherium

If this thing was on the Ark ... and assuming horses came from it ... then there were no horses on the Ark with it.

 

[Jimmy D]

If this thing was on the Ark ... and assuming horses came from it ... then there were no horses on the Ark with it.

I dunno AV, they're kind of different, apart from the body shape and size, the feet look like the most obvious difference.

 

[AV1611VET]

I dunno AV, they're kind of different, apart from the body shape and size, the feet look like the most obvious difference.

Do you think coyotes and domestic dogs both belonged on the Ark?

 

[pitabread]

nevermind, waste of time.

 

[Rubiks]

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

..which would be evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

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 sir that would be an example (if validated), of macro evolution. But one would need to prove ancestry to two separate genus (or types of animals). and like I said before, this is easier said than done, because taxonomy is not fluid, that is, it was created under the impression there is no evolution. We still use taxonomical data today, it's what tells us a cat is not a dog etc. But if evolution were true, taxonomy as we know, would be completely different and useless.

 

[createdtoworship]

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

it's not that simple they could be very different. Just because an animal looks similiar does not mean they are compatible sexually etc. If one cannot breed them, that is natures way of saying they are different animals.

 

[pitabread]

But if evolution were true, taxonomy as we know, would be completely different and useless.

Huh? What do you mean by this?

 

[Ophiolite]

it's not that simple they could be very different. Just because an animal looks similiar does not mean they are compatible sexually etc. If one cannot breed them, that is natures way of saying they are different animals.

Do you understand the following?

Population A can interbreed with population B which can interbreed with population C which can interbreed with population D . . . . and so on until. . . . population W which can interbreed with population X which can interbreed with population Y, where each population is a succeeding generation.

However, Population A would be unable to interbreed with Population M (or perhaps P), had they co-existed in time. Where we decide to place the division between species and genera, on what is a continuum of variation, depends upon which specimens we are fortunate enough to be able to examine and, to some extent, general convenience.

To repeat, the variation in populations is a continuum. The preservation of representative samples from each population is not a continuum and the recovery of such preserved specimens even less so, yet we continue to get fatuous demands for "missing links" from individuals who understand little of the fossilisation process, genetics or evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

..which would be evolution.

actually speciation is not evolution as it is currently know, I should say not macro evolution (which is the topic of this thread), ring species is another example of proven micro evolution, within the same kind of animal

 

[createdtoworship]

Huh? What do you mean by this?

taxonomy assumes evolution is invalid, this is why evolutionists chose not to use taxonomy. They use phylogeny, which assumes evolution is true, which makes it biased. But nature assumes evolution is untrue, based on the fact that animals typically mate within their kind, hence taxonomy is based on nature.

 

[xianghua]

..which would be evolution.

if the dog stay as a dog i will call it variation. since its basically still the same creature.

 

[Ophiolite]

taxonomy assumes evolution is invalid, this is why evolutionists chose not to use taxonomy. They use phylogeny, which assumes evolution is true, which makes it biased. But nature assumes evolution is untrue, based on the fact that animals typically mate within their kind, hence taxonomy is based on nature.

Nonsense. I like to collect old textbooks. It provides a useful way of exploring the development of ideas (and insight into changes in teaching methods.) Consider Biology by Claude Villee, 6th edition, 1972 W.B.Saunders Co. ISBN:0-7216-9022-X, Chapter 34, p756, The Evidence for Evolution. The very first item, Evidence from Taxonomy, includes these remarks:
"Present day taxonomists are concerned with describing species primarily as a means of discovering or clarifying evolutionary relationships. The fact that the characteristics of living things are such that they can be fitted into a hierarchical scheme of categories - species, genera, families, orders, classes and phyla - can best be interpreted as indicating evolutionary relationship."

 

[createdtoworship]

Nonsense. I like to collect old textbooks. It provides a useful way of exploring the development of ideas (and insight into changes in teaching methods.) Consider Biology by Claude Villee, 6th edition, 1972 W.B.Saunders Co. ISBN:0-7216-9022-X, Chapter 34, p756, The Evidence for Evolution. The very first item, Evidence from Taxonomy, includes these remarks:
"Present day taxonomists are concerned with describing species primarily as a means of discovering or clarifying evolutionary relationships. The fact that the characteristics of living things are such that they can be fitted into a hierarchical scheme of categories - species, genera, families, orders, classes and phyla - can best be interpreted as indicating evolutionary relationship."

yes present day maybe, but the inventor of taxonomy did not believe in evolution. (carl linnaeus), and nature does not support evolution. And plus why do you think they migrated from taxonomy to phylogeny? Because they didn't like taxonomy. And now they are trying to evolve taxonomy to support evolution, but it's hard because like I said animals mate within kinds. Monkeys do not bear human children. So nature itself refuses to adhere to evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you understand the following?

Population A can interbreed with population B which can interbreed with population C which can interbreed with population D . . . . and so on until. . . . population W which can interbreed with population X which can interbreed with population Y, where each population is a succeeding generation.

However, Population A would be unable to interbreed with Population M (or perhaps P), had they co-existed in time. Where we decide to place the division between species and genera, on what is a continuum of variation, depends upon which specimens we are fortunate enough to be able to examine and, to some extent, general convenience.

To repeat, the variation in populations is a continuum. The preservation of representative samples from each population is not a continuum and the recovery of such preserved specimens even less so, yet we continue to get fatuous demands for "missing links" from individuals who understand little of the fossilisation process, genetics or evolution.

evidence please? In mammals. This may happen in insects I don't know, but in mammals I don't believe this happens. And this would be very hard to prove, because you would need to have a living example of population A which may be dead already. So your peer review evidence must include a living example of population A, and the last population must be living as well. And they must have tried to mate them unsuccessfully. Good luck with that. It is a good theory though. Evolutionists come up with a lot of theories, just nothing proven. And this is what I mean that evolution doesn't work as a living theory. As it is unobserved.

 

[lasthero]

yes present day maybe, but the inventor of taxonomy did not believe in evolution. (carl linnaeus)

He died about thirty years before Darwin was born so...yeah.

 

[createdtoworship]

He died about thirty years before Darwin was born so...yeah.

this is arbitrary. Darwin had an idea, but because evolution is unobserved in nature, no one else seen it. We still don't see it. So darwins idea failed. But I do grant him props for finding evidence of micro evolution.

 

[durangodawood]

...We still don't see it. So darwins idea failed...

You mean like actually "see" it with our own eyes?

That would be a terrible test for determining reality, excluding everything that happens outside the human time scale.

There other valid types of evidence beyond first-person visual.

 

[Ophiolite]

yes present day maybe, but the inventor of taxonomy did not believe in evolution. (carl linnaeus), and nature does not support evolution. And plus why do you think they migrated from taxonomy to phylogeny? Because they didn't like taxonomy. And now they are trying to evolve taxonomy to support evolution, but it's hard because like I said animals mate within kinds. Monkeys do not bear human children. So nature itself refuses to adhere to evolution.

Please have the decency to provide me with a coherent argument.

You very clearly stated that evolutionists had moved away from taxonomy. I've demonstrated that is not the case.

You made no mention of the founder of taxonomy in your original post and it is not relevant here.

You have failed to note that evolutionists recognised that the hierarchy that was revealed in sound taxonomies was excellent evidence for evolution.

This recognition is why we are now more likely to talk of phylogenies, because we have recognised that the taxonomic groupings represent evolutionary relationships.

If a monkey gave birth to a human child that event would discredit the greater part, if not all, of evolutionary theory. Your astounding lack of awareness of such points makes your posts look ridiculous.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please have the decency to provide me with a coherent argument.

You very clearly stated that evolutionists had moved away from taxonomy. I've demonstrated that is not the case.

You made no mention of the founder of taxonomy in your original post and it is not relevant here.

You have failed to note that evolutionists recognised that the hierarchy that was revealed in sound taxonomies was excellent evidence for evolution.

This recognition is why we are now more likely to talk of phylogenies, because we have recognised that the taxonomic groupings represent evolutionary relationships.

If a monkey gave birth to a human child that event would discredit the greater part, if not all, of evolutionary theory. Your astounding lack of awareness of such points makes your posts look ridiculous.

no sir they would not have revamped the entire classification of animals, if the old version supported evolution as was sufficient. I see your bias clouding your judgement.