Micro/Macro what's it all about?

[tas8831]

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

Are you really claiming that a tiger and a house cat are just a variation within a kind, and that your new definition of speciation has merit?

What would robot penguin think?

 

[tas8831]

It does not appear to be of the equestrian family,

Please explain and provide support for this claim.

It seems to be it's own family.

Please explain and provide support for this claim. What are the criteria for this determination?

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

Must it? Do tell! Please explain and provide support for this claim.

At this point I would not know what two types of animals this was.

Then do explain how you are able to render judgment as to whether or not they are part of a macroevolutionary event.

Typically if an animal cannot mate with two genra [sic], it would not be an intermediary, I wouldn't think as you could never prove it was from two different animal types.

Why would it have to be "from two different animal types" if evolution is essentially a linear process" (at least in the context of this thread)?

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.

Given the level of understanding exhibited in your post, I don't think you luck will matter.

 

[xianghua]

Are you really claiming that a tiger and a house cat are just a variation within a kind,

sure. why not?

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has had a minor clean of goading/flaming posts.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[createdtoworship]

Please explain and provide support for this claim.

Please explain and provide support for this claim. What are the criteria for this determination?

Must it? Do tell! Please explain and provide support for this claim.
Then do explain how you are able to render judgment as to whether or not they are part of a macroevolutionary event.

sir the taxonomy of the animal is literally not classified as equestrian, it's something else.

wikipedia plainly states all the genra of animals, when you look them up, it will tell you in the right hand side, all the taxonomy of an animal. It's quite usefull.

If I missed something in your post that you absolutely need me to adress, post it again. For lack of time, I can't adress all your post.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Chapter and verse demonstrating this "revamping of the entire classification of animals" please. Without detailed support for this bland assertion it can and should be ignored.

 

[essentialsaltes]

sir the taxonomy of the animal is literally not classified as equestrian, it's something else.

But, like equines, it is an odd-toed ungulate (order Perissodactyla).

This branching of the taxonomy... All animals are in the animal kingdom. Some are in the branch of animals with a spinal cord, some are in the branch of segmented worms. Some of those with a spinal cord are tetrapods, some aren't. And so on.

That branching structure. That nested hierarchy. That is a feature of Linnaean taxonomy that developed from his observations, 'uncontaminated' by evolutionary thought, since it was developed before Darwin's time.

It is also what we would expect from an evolutionary scenario of common descent. Like a family tree.

So can you explain why you think taxonomy and evolution are (or used to be) incompatible?

 

[createdtoworship]

Chapter and verse demonstrating this "revamping of the entire classification of animals" please. Without detailed support for this bland assertion it can and should be ignored.

An article in science daily in 2011 says that -“A New Evolutionary History of Primates,” claims that ...researchers have created “[a] robust new phylogenetic tree” which “resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy."

case and point sir.

I will expect a thank you for that.

 

[Jimmy D]

An article in science daily in 2011 says that -“A New Evolutionary History of Primates,” claims that ...researchers have created “[a] robust new phylogenetic tree” which “resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy."

case and point sir.

I will expect a thank you for that.

Great, thanks for posting that. Not only are we using new data and techniques to gain a clearer understanding of primate evolution, but it also seems that the findings will have practical applications in the medical field.

 

[essentialsaltes]

which “resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy."

The taxonomy was unclear. There were long-standing questions about some details of the primates. Now they have been resolved.

Resolving an issue among one group of animals is hardly a "revamping of the entire classification of animals".

 

[createdtoworship]

Great, thanks for posting that. Not only are we using new data and techniques to gain a clearer understanding of primate evolution, but it also seems that the findings will have practical applications in the medical field.

The taxonomy was unclear. There were long-standing questions about some details of the primates. Now they have been resolved.

Resolving an issue among one group of animals is hardly a "revamping of the entire classification of animals".

a peer review journal in "biology theory" states this
"Molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness."*

the quote is saying that phylogenics (molecular trees) are based on the assumption of universal common ancestry (something not found in taxonomy)
in the previous quote I showed that they had found issues with taxonomy, and these problems according this quote are related to universal common ancestry ( a major premise of monkey to man evolution)

*- Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Bruno Maresca, “Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics,” Biological Theory, 1(4):357-371, (2006).

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness."*

the quote is saying that phylogenics (molecular trees) are based on the assumption of universal common ancestry (something not found in taxonomy)

No, the assumption is that similarity reflects relatedness.

(We already know that we're all related, because evolution is a fact.)

But what has this to do with taxonomy?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So I proved what I was saying, evolutionists revamped taxonomy into phylogeny because taxonomy did not support their evolutionary viewpoint.

But taxonomy, and its treelike structure, does support evolution.

Your welcome.

My welcome what?

 

[createdtoworship]

No, the assumption is that similarity reflects relatedness.

(We already know that we're all related, because evolution is a fact.)

But what has this to do with taxonomy?

yes when we beg the question relating to science, many things become true for us.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, the assumption is that similarity reflects relatedness.

(We already know that we're all related, because evolution is a fact.)

But what has this to do with taxonomy?

taxonomy was not good enough for evolutionists because it does not prove universal common ancestry. Due to a natural barrier to evolution, the simple fact that animals only reproduce and have fertile offspring with the same type of animal. So because of this barrier in taxonomical structure, they created phylogeny, which does not have that same barrier, but at the same time, according to the peer review, assumes universal natural selection is true. which is a blatant violation of begging the question fallacies.

 

[essentialsaltes]

taxonomy was not good enough for evolutionists because it does not prove universal common ancestry.

We rely on many lines of evidence to demonstrate the truth of evolution and UCA. But taxonomy is not merely consistent with UCA, but its branching structure actually suggests it. It is a piece of supporting evidence for evolution.

Due to a natural barrier to evolution, the simple fact that animals only reproduce and have fertile offspring with the same type of animal. So because of this barrier in taxonomical structure

Taxonomy is just a system of naming. The fact that offspring are like their parents is not a piece of taxonomy. Nor is it a barrier. Again this gets back to the whole point of this thread.

It seemed to be a very easy thing to establish, but the amount of handwringing and defensiveness it has created is amazing. If it could be shown that descendants of non-horses became horses, this would be an example of macroevolution. Most of the participants here seem to finally be in agreement on this matter.

which is a blatant violation of begging the question fallacies.

If we want to talk about begging the question fallacies, yours takes the cake. 'Since these two species have different names, then there is a 'barrier' to one having descended from the other.'

 

[xianghua]

(We already know that we're all related, because evolution is a fact.)

no we dont. its a belief since we cant prove it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

no we dont. its a belief since we cant prove it.

There is little, if anything, that we can prove outside of mathematics. But this doesn't mean we can't know anything. The justification and evidence supporting the fact of evolution, and the general arguments supporting the theory explaining it, are such that I can only doubt this knowledge by going to extreme measures, such as supposing that I am a brain in a vat.

 

[Jimmy D]

We rely on many lines of evidence to demonstrate the truth of evolution and UCA. But taxonomy is not merely consistent with UCA, but its branching structure actually suggests it. It is a piece of supporting evidence for evolution.

It's a strange argument alright.

 

[Jimmy D]

Again this gets back to the whole point of this thread.

It seemed to be a very easy thing to establish, but the amount of handwringing and defensiveness it has created is amazing. If it could be shown that descendants of non-horses became horses, this would be an example of macroevolution. Most of the participants here seem to finally be in agreement on this matter.

BINGO!