Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 05-13-2003, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus

Originally posted by Ed
Ok, I'll bite, what is it?(macroevolution)

dd: Macroevolution is the patterns that emerge when microevolution occurs on a large scale. The term does not mean large scale morphological change. The progression from australopithecus to modern man, for example, is microevolution. When you look at the history of that evolution, and include the role of ecology, geology, extinctions, and speciation into your analysis, you're thinking about macroevolution..

Ummm....fraid not. According to Stephen J. Gould in "A View of Life" they are, "macroevolution: Evolutionary change above the species level. Microevolution: Evolutionary changes within local populations, up to the origin of new species."

Ed · 05-13-2003, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
Nowadays, the mountain lion / cougar / puma is often classified as

Puma concolor

But I somehow don't expect Ed to understand.

Well, the Smithsonian Institution still calls them Felis concolor.
So I am in good company!

Ed · 05-13-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

oc: African and Indian elephants (Loxodonta and Elephas) are separate kinds, are they Ed? And yet those two are only as genetically distinct as the African savannah elephant (Loxodonta africana and the forest elephant (L cyclotis are from each other. See http://home.ncifcrf.gov/ccr/lgd/pub...phant/index.asp

Ed: No, they were probably one kind.

jtb: ...Despite being more distantly related to each other than humans are to chimps.

Evidence?

Oolon Colluphid · 05-14-2003, 01:43 AM

Quote:

jtb: ...Despite being more distantly related to each other than humans are to chimps.

Ed: Evidence?

Will you accept the genetic evidence if we go to the trouble of digging it up and presenting it? Because if not, what's the point?

The claim is that:

P1: Loxodonta and Elephas are more genetically distinct, more distantly related, than Pan and Homo.

P2: Loxodonta and Elephas are the same 'kind'.

C: Pan and Homo are also the same 'kind'.

Do you accept this logic? If so, we will look into the evidence to support P1. If not, then I'll not bother.

TTFN, Oolon

Doubting Didymus · 05-14-2003, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Ummm....fraid not. According to Stephen J. Gould in "A View of Life" they are, "macroevolution: Evolutionary change above the species level. Microevolution: Evolutionary changes within local populations, up to the origin of new species."

Yes. Technically Goulds definitions are correct, but they are too simplistic and are likely to mislead. Macroevolution is 'evolution above the species level', but that does not mean 'evolution from one kind of creature into a different kind of creature'. It's referring to factors outside of ordinary population trait frequencies that influence and direct evolution. Its a complex and subtle concept, and also one that is largely misunderstood.

The point you should be taking from this is that a large scale change does not neccessarily constitute macroevolution.

Ed · 05-14-2003, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Say, this could be fun, if silly.

Reticulated python ((Python reticulatus) , Fea's viper (Azemiops fea), and rock rattlesnake (Crotalus lepidus).

I think we can safely assume three 'kinds' here, depending upon how you define kind. O' course, it could be all just 'snake' kind.

So, let's tighten it up a little bit: First, our tiny friend, the Rock Rattlesnake (C. lepidus), and the slightly larger Pygmy Rattlesnake (Sistrusus miliarius). And, lets throw in, just for the hell of it, the Ridge-nosed Rattler (C. willardi). Three small, rattling snakes. How many 'kinds'?

Ed, if you're unfamiliar with Rattlesnakes, enough info to make a quick guess can be found in either the Peterson's or the Audubon's field guides. I prefer the Audubons. Also, Klauber's "Rattlesnakes" will give you more than you ever wanted to know about them. Also highly reccommended is Manny Rubio's 'Rattlesnake, Portrat of a Predator".

I suggest a careful study before answering. Snakes can be sneaky.

doov

I would say they are one kind.

Ed · 05-14-2003, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Snakes are wonderful!

Specifically, wonderful for an exercise such as this.

This is off the top of my head, as the info is at home, but I'm sure Doov can correct / fill in...

Now, there�s this snake family, the Elapidae. They include kraits, mambas, cobras and coral snakes. Are the genera Micrurus, Naja, Bungarus and Dendroaspis separate kinds? One might think not, because despite the substantial differences between these forms, they all share distinguishing similarities in their fangs and poison glands.

The problem is, these features are also present to varying degrees in other snake families.

And what of sea snakes, the Hydrophiidae? Some experts consider them part of the Elapidae. You can tell an Elapid from a hydrophiids by their choanal processes: elapids have them, Hydrophiids don�t. Except for Dendroaspis mambas, which are Elapids in all but choanal processes.

And, dearest Ed, what about bats? Perhaps you could tell us how many �kinds� of bat there are? Because in the suborder Microchiroptera there are sixteen families and over 750 species. The premaxilla is a main bat taxonomic characteristic.

Do you think these two premaxillae might be from the same �kind�?

But they can�t be. Because the first is a member of the Phyllostomidae, the New World leaf-nosed bats; the second is a member of the Molossidae, the free-tailed bats.

Here�s some of the variation just within the Phyllostomidae:

.

All one �kind�? How many �kinds� of bat are there Ed? Aren�t they all just the �bat kind�? Microchiroptera or Megachiroptera?

TTFN, Oolon (who�s glad to be Oolon again )

I would say that there were probably 16 kinds of bats. Each family represents a kind.

Ed · 05-14-2003, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I think Ed's problem is worse than that. He recently claimed that Richard Carrier (born in 1969) is 21 years old.

No, you misread my post, I was referring to Peter Kirby.

Ed · 05-14-2003, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
And even worse, that being a historian who specializes in the Roman Empire somehow disqualifies one from having any expertise in the New Testament.

Even though the New Testament had been written in the Roman Empire!

But we were talking about the Old Testament! :banghead:

Jack the Bodiless · 05-15-2003, 02:12 AM

Edit: disregard this post.

Carrier's degrees in Ancient History are not relevant to Evolution/Creation. I don't want to be guilty of side-tracking this thread.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-15-2003, 02:12 AM	#780
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Edit: disregard this post. Carrier's degrees in Ancient History are not relevant to Evolution/Creation. I don't want to be guilty of side-tracking this thread.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.