[_ Old Earth _] POST HERE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE DEBATE

[Blazin Bones]

Debate is over. 8-) To Tua's credit, he did acknowledge BL just made better points. Great debate. 8-)

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Syntax is fundamentally wrong. As the theory goes, therapod macroevolves, no longer therapod but bird (see definition of bird). As the theory goes, original feline macroevolves, no longer original feline but cheetah. If a dog macroevolved it would be something other than a dog...

That's as basic and elementary as it gets. You simply don't want to recognize that reproductive viability is a set by receptors on egg and sperm and that macroevolution represents the idea that one species can evolve so that its receptors don't match its ancestors'.

I am right, this is extremely basic, please do not further argue the point. Macroevolution is not time-based, it is change-based... to say otherwise is ignorant and foolish.

BL

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Syntax is fundamentally wrong. As the theory goes, therapod macroevolves, no longer therapod but bird (see definition of bird). As the theory goes, original feline macroevolves, no longer original feline but cheetah. If a dog macroevolved it would be something other than a dog...

You're shifting goal posts, speciation is considered macroevolution, so is genus branching and further evolution. All that is entailed when something is said to macroevolve is that the animal is significantly different from the species it originated from, to the point where its genetics are not viable.

That's as basic and elementary as it gets. You simply don't want to recognize that reproductive viability is a set by receptors on egg and sperm and that macroevolution represents the idea that one species can evolve so that its receptors don't match its ancestors'.

It's more complex than that, if a species has similar receptors to another species, but they have significantly different DNA, then they are not going to produce offspring, or what's produced will not gestate correctly.
Furthermore, I am using the the definition given by Quath for speciation, that being that the two groups of animals don't have genetic material going back and forth between them, so they are going to become different genetically.

I am right, this is extremely basic, please do not further argue the point. Macroevolution is not time-based, it is change-based... to say otherwise is ignorant and foolish.

BL

Time in this argument means that large numbers of changes have taken place. Macroevolution can happen quickly, if a large amount of genetic changes happen, but microevolution is not that fast, so time is required. You're differentiating between the two in a way that is arbitrary. Don't claim victory so easily, BL.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

You're shifting goal posts, speciation is considered macroevolution, so is genus branching and further evolution.

Well congratulations on helping me shift them... you just stated exactly what I've been saying macroevolution is. Microevolution then is the evolution within a species.

Furthermore, I am using the the definition given by Quath for speciation, that being that the two groups of animals don't have genetic material going back and forth between them, so they are going to become different genetically.

Of course, as I showed in the debate, that makes chihuahuas in England a different species than chihuahuas in Peru. Might be time to get a new definition.

Macroevolution can happen quickly, if a large amount of genetic changes happen, but microevolution is not that fast, so time is required.

Wha??????? Microevolution occurs every time a new generation is born. And both macroevolution and microevolution are change related, not time-related. You and I both know that, so why defend it as if it is defendable?

BL

 

[Vic C.]

Debate is over. 8-) To Tua's credit, he did acknowledge BL just made better points. Great debate. 8-)

Trust me Tim...the debate is NEVER over! LOL :

 

[Blazin Bones]

Well the Official one is, but as can be seen by the following post, that does not include all debate. 8-)

 

[bob]

8-)Atheists are a dying breed. Inter-faithism proves this,and so does The RCC.

Actually, I recently read that in the US and Canada, in the past 10 years, non believers have grown in numbers by about 7% while believers have declined by the same number.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

You're shifting goal posts, speciation is considered macroevolution, so is genus branching and further evolution.

Well congratulations on helping me shift them... you just stated exactly what I've been saying macroevolution is. Microevolution then is the evolution within a species.

No you've been saying that macroevolution is that amount of evolution that changes the dog to the not dog, while this is unnecessary for speciation. Indeed, all that needs to be changed, as you pointed out, would be reproductive receptors on sperm and egg cells. If for instance, some virus attacked those cells that had a certain set of receptors and sterilized those dogs with that set, but not the few mutants with a separate set, then eventually the original dogs would not be able to breed with their descendants.

[quote:0bfef]Furthermore, I am using the the definition given by Quath for speciation, that being that the two groups of animals don't have genetic material going back and forth between them, so they are going to become different genetically.

Of course, as I showed in the debate, that makes chihuahuas in England a different species than chihuahuas in Peru. Might be time to get a new definition.
[/quote:0bfef]
Good point, then I'll extend the definition to the point that the genetic isolation occurs and eventually makes them genetically isolated no matter what. Evolution, keep in mind, is a process, and speciation happens when the two groups pass the point of no return as far as possible future genetic transmit is concerned.
Chihuahuas in england, if they have no genetic contact with those in Peru for thousands of generations, may eventually not be able to have transfer of genetic code at all. What you've posited is the beginning of genetic isolation, not the end of it.

[quote:0bfef]Macroevolution can happen quickly, if a large amount of genetic changes happen, but microevolution is not that fast, so time is required.

Wha??????? Microevolution occurs every time a new generation is born. And both macroevolution and microevolution are change related, not time-related. You and I both know that, so why defend it as if it is defendable?

BL[/quote:0bfef]
You can't have 10 generations of dogs within 30 seconds, so it is time related indirectly, that's why we say that macroevolution takes a long time. For bacteria on the other hand it is not very long, but bacteria are a special case because all species of bacteria can pass genetic information to each other, and that practically makes them a single unconscious world organism. You're attacking a nonissue, time is required because everything cannot happen at once. I concede that microevolution in its most basic sense happens in each generation, and my statement in that regard was imprecise, I apologize. Microevolution in the sense of fostering new traits within a species, is not a fast process as it require several generations for a trait to propogate throughout a group.

 

[sheseala]

I can fetch a list of 34 articles on observed speciation in insects, if anybody is interested.

Most are on fruit flies, mainly due to how much they have been observed and tested on.

 

[keebs]

Eh, don't bother...I've given them instances of speciation in fruit flies too, and apparently it does count because the "fruit fly didn't turn into a bird."

 

[sheseala]

For bacteria on the other hand it is not very long, but bacteria are a special case because all species of bacteria can pass genetic information to each other, and that practically makes them a single unconscious world organism.

The microbiology student in me is cringing.

 

[sheseala]

Eh, don't bother...I've given them instances of speciation in fruit flies too, and apparently it does count because the "fruit fly didn't turn into a bird."

Um, how about fish speciaction, I have a couple on that. Heh, if the fruit fly turned into a bird, the whole TOE would come crashing down.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

For bacteria on the other hand it is not very long, but bacteria are a special case because all species of bacteria can pass genetic information to each other, and that practically makes them a single unconscious world organism.

The microbiology student in me is cringing.

I may have misinterpreted Bill Bryson, to whom I attribute that statement. Don't look at me, I'm just a cosmology student.

 

[sheseala]

I know what is meant by it. Just thinking that things with completely different methods metabolism as the same species bugs me.

Then again, it shouldn't, because biology isn't the field I'm in. I just need to use it.

And the above statement shows I'm not an english student.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Anybody else up for this thread dying so that these discussions can take place in more appropriate topics?

BL

 

[Blazin Bones]

I agree, no need to have another place for the usual fueding. 8-)

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Fine with me, lock and destickify. Let it drop into the depths like a man with concrete galoshes.