microevolution versus macroevolution

[Pete Harcoff]

I've tried to get an answer to this before, but have yet to receive any sort of substantive response.

From a biological stand-point, the definitions of "micro" and "macro" evolution seem to be as follows:

microevolution - evolution within a particular species
macroevolution - evolution between species (in other words, diverging populations that eventually become distinct species; naturally common decent is included in this definition)

Now, I notice some people accept speciation (populations diverging into new species), but seem to put draw a barrier at some point. And what that point is, I still haven't been able to find out (hence, I'm trying to find out).

So, I present to you Exhibit A. It's a picture I made containing nine members of the family Felidae (the "cat" family). The animals in question are (from left to right, top to bottom):

Caracal (Caracal caracal)
Marbeled Cat (Pardofelis marmorata)
Sandcat (Felis margarita)
Flat-headed cat (Prionailurus planiceps)
Tiger (Panthera tigris)
Serval (Leptailarus serval)
Canadian Lynx (Lynx canadensis)
Jaguarundi (Herpailurus yaguarondi)
Asian Golded Cat (Catopuma temmincki)

I want to know, do you believe these animals could have arisen from a common ancestor? If not, why not?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

*bump*

Anyone?

 

[ZiSunka]

Who cares?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by lambslove
Who cares?

Well, let's see... I've seen numerous examples of creationists telling me that "macroevolution" (i.e. common decent) is impossible. Yet, some will tell me that decent within a specific "kind" is perfectly hunky-dorey.

I am trying to find out (using examples from the Felidae family) where this "barrier" lies between "micro" and "macro" evolution that some creationists seem to imagine.

If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, then kindly keep your pointless comments to yourself.

 

[MSBS]

edit to remove the smart alec comment.  No need for it.

 

[ZiSunka]

I am a biologist. But I don't see what his question has to do with Christianity. So I don't care that he has asked it. This is a Christian website. If you want info about biology, go to a biology website.

 

[MSBS]

Well now, I am also a biologist.  Now that that's out of the way, this is the "Science, Creation, & Evolution" section of this here christiain web site.  Seeing as this section of the forum was specifically set up to discuss issues such as this I really don't see why you are so dead set against it. 

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by lambslove
I am a biologist. But I don't see what his question has to do with Christianity. So I don't care that he has asked it. This is a Christian website. If you want info about biology, go to a biology website.

...

This particular forum is entitled "Science, Creation & Evolution".

The subject of microevolution and macroevolution comes up a lot in debates regarding creation/evolution.

Some people seem to hold different views of what "micro" or "macro" evolution is.

I am trying to learn more about those views to better understand them.

If you don't care that I asked this question, then why bother to say anything at all?

 

[ZiSunka]

Why ask the question if all you want is to force people to accept things your way.

You're not looking for information, you're looking for ammunition.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by lambslove
Why ask the question if all you want is to force people to accept things your way.

You're not looking for information, you're looking for ammunition.

Huh? I'm not trying to "force" anyone. If someone is going to tell me that current felines (for example) could have shared a common ancestor, but then say, canines and felines could NOT have shared a common ancestor, then I want to know what is different about those two, and why one situation is acceptable, but the other is not.

I am perfectly content to accept that the mechanism in those two scenarios is exactly the same, but some people do not (and then go on to say macroevolution can't happen, etc, etc).

I want to know why not, so I am picking a specific example to see if anyone can explain it to me. I really don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[ZiSunka]

Have you considered that people just don't care?

We're bored with all this. Evolutionists come here to put us in our place, to let us know that they are superior because science is on their side. But what you don't realize is that science is peripheral to our faith. It just doesn't matter to us where the various cats come from. If you want to talk about that idea, you'll have to find people who care.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by lambslove
Have you considered that people just don't care?

We're bored with all this. Evolutionists come here to put us in our place, to let us know that they are superior because science is on their side. But what you don't realize is that science is peripheral to our faith. It just doesn't matter to us where the various cats come from. If you want to talk about that idea, you'll have to find people who care.

So it's perfectly okay for someone to tell me something is impossible, but something else is possible, yet I can't see any difference between the two, and when I ask to have that difference explained, I get greeted with a bunch of defensive posturing.

And now that you've made a number of accusations about my intentions, I doubt anyone else will even attempt an answer.

Thanks for nothing, lambslove.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by lambslove
Have you considered that people just don't care?

No, because apparently certain people in Ohio and Georgia care very much. Enough so to force the schools to teach children nonsense.

We're bored with all this.

Then go away.

Evolutionists come here to put us in our place, to let us know that they are superior because science is on their side.

No, we come here to defend science against unfounded attacks by know-nothings.

But what you don't realize is that science is peripheral to our faith.

Good. So you shouldn't care one whit if evolution is taught in your schools, right?

It just doesn't matter to us where the various cats come from. If you want to talk about that idea, you'll have to find people who care.

If you care so little, then why are you here?

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by lambslove
Have you considered that people just don't care?

We're bored with all this. Evolutionists come here to put us in our place, to let us know that they are superior because science is on their side. But what you don't realize is that science is peripheral to our faith. It just doesn't matter to us where the various cats come from. If you want to talk about that idea, you'll have to find people who care.

Perhaps this thread is intended for the YECs who actually bother to care about science, rather than those who spout off about how a perfectly material question doesn't mean anything to them personally.

The most perplexing part about your statement is that Pete posted this perfectly legitimate question ON THE SCIENCE BOARD. If you don't care about science, I recommend you stay off the science board and stop harassing those who come to this extremely appropriate place to discuss science.

-jon

 

[ZiSunka]

Doesn't seem like anyone else wanted to answer this question either. It had to get bumped to even make it visible again. Take a hint.

And oh yeah, I'm real afraid of your little warning.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by lambslove
Doesn't seem like anyone else wanted to answer this question either. It had to get bumped to even make it visible again. Take a hint.

I posted it yesterday and bumped it today to see if there was any interest. If no one wanted to bother with it, then no one needed to even reply.

Of course, you (for some reason) decided to post a very RUDE post, in my opinion. Seriously, how would you like it if I hijacked one of your threads with a "who cares" post, then a bunch of ranting about how people are too "bored" to even bother to answer?

And oh yeah, I'm real afraid of your little warning.

Huh?

edit: Scratch that, I see you're referring to Cancer To Iniquity's post above. Still, I don't get why you'd be so offended by me asking an evolution-related question in a forum that says it's specifically for that topic. Any reason you're being so defensive about all this, lambslove?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by lambslove
Doesn't seem like anyone else wanted to answer this question either. It had to get bumped to even make it visible again. Take a hint.

How about you take a hint: The reason creationists have no response is because CREATIONISM DOESN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

I'm sorry lambslove but I have to answer. 

I don't have the refrences with me at this time but I can give you the answer to this question.

The answer is genetics.  I can't be sure I have this all right or not but here goes...

All those cats are descendants of the two cats on Noah's ark.  They all of the same genes the difference between them is dormant genes have been awakend in some and put to rest in others.  Also, they have rearanged slightly so the animals can adapt better to their environment.  By the way, THEY ARE STILL CATS!!

They are not related to dogs because dogs have a different set of genes.  The some goes for them as it goes for cats.  They are still dogs!!

Even humans do this to some extent(Eskimos vs. Africans). There are differences in apperance and the different arangement of genes, but they are still humans.

 

[MSBS]

Well lambslove, your caustic and downright rude posting seems to me to be in violation of rules #1 and #7 of this forum. It seems your biggest complaint should be against the moderaters of this forum, that set aside a spot for the type of debate you hold in such contempt. Why not take it up with them and agitate for the removal of this section of the forum instead of flaming?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Flaming Blaze
All those cats are descendants of the two cats on Noah's ark.  They all of the same genes the difference between them is dormant genes have been awakend in some and put to rest in others.  Also, they have rearanged slightly so the animals can adapt better to their environment.  By the way, THEY ARE STILL CATS!!

They are not related to dogs because dogs have a different set of genes.  The some goes for them as it goes for cats.  They are still dogs!!

Wow. By that brilliant logic then I guess humans and chimpanzees are both of the same kind since our DNA is 98% identical. Apparently Noah and his family were man-chimps and are the ancestors of both people and apes.