Why MICRO but not MACRO?

[stevil]

Only on paper.

You obviously haven't seen her.

 

[driewerf]

Where would you like me to start?

Start with what? Study biology? You would be most welcome to do so.

 

[SuperCow]

We also have the evidence of the extant species and the patterns of genetic similarity between them.

Genetic similarity makes if more likely that they had a common ancestor, but it isn't proof of that, and the closer the similarity, the more likely for it to still be considered reproducing after it's kind as per Genesis.

Geographic and environmental isolation is required for speciation to occur. I don't think it;s controversial to propose this happening.

No it is not. The question is whether what we call a different species is actually considered a different species that cannot reintegrate if the geographic and environmental isolation is removed.

You are misunderstanding my point.

The variation between those two breeds would make interbreeding unlikely, and lacking more median dogs would survive with different strategies and different pressures.

I'm not proposing that these breeds are primed to survive abruptly being in the wild, merely to use them as an example of two extremely closely related populations that could be labelled as a macroevolutionary change.

I understood your point. I am saying that that particular situation cannot occur in nature, but only exists because humans created two animal types that look like different species even though they are both dogs. Force-mating a cow and a buffalo can produce an offspring, but it is usually sterile. If you force bred a dog and a wolf, would you get a viable offspring that could continue to reproduce? If you can, then I would surmise that they are not different species and no macro-evolution has occurred. Or in a religious sense it would mean the animals still reproduced according to their kind. A wolf would then be just another breed of dogs. (Or dogs are another breed of wolves. Take your pick.)

Dogs are effectively a ring species by body plan.

Not familiar with that particular term, and the wikipedia explanation was more confusing than my limited interest in biology was willing to figure out.

That's just an example of a large stable population of canids being, more or less a sub species of wolves reacquiring the niche left by wolves and coyotes.

And probably at some time possibly reintegrating with the wild populations.

Using any understanding of genetics the Ark narrative is completely impossible without significant intervention of vast amounts of extra plants, animals, genetic diversity, sedimentary structures and fossils by miracle.

Or an interpretation of the flood story that is not all-encompassing in nature.

 

[Shemjaza]

Genetic similarity makes if more likely that they had a common ancestor, but it isn't proof of that, and the closer the similarity, the more likely for it to still be considered reproducing after it's kind as per Genesis.

I didn't say genetic similarity, I said pattern of genetic similarity. The point about the genetics of extant species isn't just that we can form the canids into one family tree and call it the diversification of a "dog" kind, it's that we can do this to the canids and also with other more distantly related animals.

All placental mammals also fall into a branching family tree and also all animals full stop.

No it is not. The question is whether what we call a different species is actually considered a different species that cannot reintegrate if the geographic and environmental isolation is removed.

That's simply a matter of degree.

A lion and tiger can not in any real sense re-integrate, even if they suddenly had overlapping environments.

I understood your point. I am saying that that particular situation cannot occur in nature, but only exists because humans created two animal types that look like different species even though they are both dogs. Force-mating a cow and a buffalo can produce an offspring, but it is usually sterile. If you force bred a dog and a wolf, would you get a viable offspring that could continue to reproduce? If you can, then I would surmise that they are not different species and no macro-evolution has occurred. Or in a religious sense it would mean the animals still reproduced according to their kind. A wolf would then be just another breed of dogs. (Or dogs are another breed of wolves. Take your pick.)

Hybrid breeding of separate species or wild and dommestic varieties of a species are a different thing to speciation.

The great dane and chihuahua are examples of the variation possible with simply mutation and isolation and are both still perfectly capable of breeding and surviving. So it is not reasonable to state that similar structures are impossible in nature.

My point has never been that they are an example of macroevolution, but that they are already an example of the first stage that makes macroevolution possible.

Not familiar with that particular term, and the wikipedia explanation was more confusing than my limited interest in biology was willing to figure out.

Simply: Species A CAN breed with Species B CAN breed with Species C CAN breed with Species D CANNOT breed with Species A
This has been observed with related species of birds with overlapping ranges that loop around like a ring until A and D who are so different that they can't interbreed... this means if B and C go extinct it's effectively instant macroevolution.

And probably at some time possibly reintegrating with the wild populations.

I was assuming the lack of a wild population.

Interestingly a stable wild population of coyotes or wolves would probably put more pressure on hypothetical wild dogs to find another niche to adapt to.

Or an interpretation of the flood story that is not all-encompassing in nature.

If you are willing to accept a non literal interpretation of the flood, why insist on a literal interpretation of the creation of life and man?

 

[BCP1928]

Genetic similarity makes if more likely that they had a common ancestor, but it isn't proof of that,

Just on a side note, science doesn't "prove." The most you can expect from science is the best explanation of a phenomenon currently available based on the evidence at hand. But while scientific theories are provisional and never "proven" they can be disproven, or falsified, at any time by new evidence. When they are falsified they must be modified or abandoned. So it is with evolution. You could, in principle, falsify the theory of evolution (though it is pretty sound, as theories go) but all you would have is a falsified theory, not a default to a previously falsified theory or even to an account for which there is no scientific evidence whatever, like the Genesis accounts.

and the closer the similarity, the more likely for it to still be considered reproducing after it's kind as per Genesis.

Creatures always reproduce after their "kind" whether there is just one "kind" (the common ancestor of evolution) or many (the independently created "kinds" imagined by the Genesis account.) Here is a question for you: my great great grandfather was born in Switzerland. He was Swiss. The question is, how many generations of my descendants will have to be born and pass away before my great great grandfather stops being Swiss?

 

[SuperCow]

Just on a side note, science doesn't "prove." The most you can expect from science is the best explanation of a phenomenon currently available based on the evidence at hand. But while scientific theories are provisional and never "proven" they can be disproven, or falsified, at any time by new evidence. When they are falsified they must be modified or abandoned. So it is with evolution. You could, in principle, falsify the theory of evolution (though it is pretty sound, as theories go) but all you would have is a falsified theory, not a default to a previously falsified theory or even to an account for which there is no scientific evidence whatever, like the Genesis accounts.

Genesis doesn't try to be a scientific document. It's a story to explain the origin of earth in a very simplistic way, so it can be told to people regardless of their experience level. Much is omitted from the details. God left it to people who might later want to learn more on their own to determine the fine details of life.

Creatures always reproduce after their "kind" whether there is just one "kind" (the common ancestor of evolution) or many (the independently created "kinds" imagined by the Genesis account.) Here is a question for you: my great great grandfather was born in Switzerland. He was Swiss. The question is, how many generations of my descendants will have to be born and pass away before my great great grandfather stops being Swiss?

Swiss is an arbitrary geographical boundary. It says nothing about your great great grandfather except where he lived for a portion or all of his life. The question should be, how many generations of descendants will have to be born, before his descendants stop being human?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Swiss is an arbitrary geographical boundary. It says nothing about your great great grandfather except where he lived for a portion or all of his life. The question should be, how many generations of descendants will have to be born, before his descendants stop being human?

I'm glad that you were the one to comment on it because I could not think of a thing to say on it.

 

[BCP1928]

Genesis doesn't try to be a scientific document. It's a story to explain the origin of earth in a very simplistic way, so it can be told to people regardless of their experience level. Much is omitted from the details. God left it to people who might later want to learn more on their own to determine the fine details of life.



Swiss is an arbitrary geographical boundary. It says nothing about your great great grandfather except where he lived for a portion or all of his life. The question should be, how many generations of descendants will have to be born, before his descendants stop being human?

Never happen. They will forever be humans, primates, mammals, vertebrates and members of the animal kingdom. Even if they evolved to putting down roots and living off chlorophyll they could never belong to the plant kingdom, they would just be plant-like animals. The same with other creatures, whales, for example: Science tells us that they used to have legs and walk around on land. They are still clearly mammals and no amount of evolution could ever turn them into fishes--just like all my descendants will be offspring of a man from Switzerland, forever.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm glad that you were the one to comment on it because I could not think of a thing to say on it.

You could challenge it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Never happen. They will forever be humans, primates, mammals, vertebrates and members of the animal kingdom. Even if they evolved to putting down roots and living off chlorophyll they could never belong to the plant kingdom, they would just be plant-like animals. The same with other creatures, whales, for example: Science tells us that they used to have legs and walk around on land. They are still clearly mammals and no amount of evolution could ever turn them into fishes--just like all my descendants will be offspring of a man from Switzerland, forever.

Place of geographical birth is not really analogous with evolutionary descent.

 

[BCP1928]

Place of geographical birth is not really analogous with evolutionary descent.

It's a weak analogy, I'll admit. I was merely trying to comment on the common creationists' expectation that evolution requires evolving creatures to "jump" from one line of evolutionary descent to another--to breed not according to "kind," Or, at least to make sure that was not SuperCow's expectation.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Per the OP's request:

MOD HAT OFF​