In article , "mel turner"
wrote:

"Jason" wrote in message
...
In article , "mel turner"
wrote:
"Jason" wrote in message
[snip of previous bits]
Elf,
You must not know much about creation science or ID. I am an advocate
of
creation science and receive a newsletter from ICR each month. We
believe
that micro-evolution is a fact. That's the reason that we have 45 deer
species.

No.
1] The origin of new species from ancestral species is macroevolution,
not microevolution. That's by the definitions used by the scientists
who coined the terms. Creationists consistently misuse them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/pa...evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

2] If the origin of the entire deer family from a single common
ancestral species is merely permissable "microevolution" to you, then
presumably so should be the common origin of humans, chimpanzees,
gorillas and orangutans. We 'apes' are certainly at least as closely
related as moose and whitetail, caribou and muntjacs [we're probably
a lot closer than most deer genera]. It wouldn't be surprising to me
if humans and chimpanzees are about as close genetically as are
whitetailed deer and mule deer [two closely related deer species].

If a new species of mosquitoes evolves from other mosquitoes--that's
micro-evolution.

No, that's _macroevolution_, by definition. Microevolution is
evolutionary change within a single species. New species formation
and the evolution of groups of related species [such as the mosquito
family, the deer family, or the human and ape family are
macroevolution. Scientists coined these terms, they're not for
creationists to redefine. Actually, they don't ever define the
distinction clearly enough for anyone else to use it.

Can you tell us how we can tell the limits of groups that can have
evolved naturally from a common ancestral species? How can you tell
that it's the entire deer family in this case, and not just a genus
like Cervus or Odocoileus, or a single species like the moose, or a
whole group of related families like the order Artiodactyla? What
are the objective criteria for recognizing these limits?
Creationists rarely even pretend to have any answers.

I know that it's possible for tree experts to graft a
branch one fruit tree (apple tree) onto the branch of another fruit
tree
(peach).

No, they're too far apart and that graft will fail. But yes, you
can graft other more closely related plants such as peaches and
plums and apricots and almonds and cherries. Or different citrus
fruits on a single citrus tree. But how is this relevant?

I seem to recall that one tree expert had a tree that produced
several different types of fruit.

It's commonplace, and examples are sold in nurseries as
novelties.

That's not evolution since it did not
occur naturally.

It's not evolution because it's not a genetic change. Genetic
change in a population of organisms over generations is
evolution whether it's in the wild or in human-controlled
situations.

It's a form of intelligent design.

Yes, it's an activity done purposefully by humans. But it's
irrelevant to evolution versus creationism.

There's no evidence for any "intelligent design" other than by
humans, certainly not any involving the origin of organisms
and their features.

cheers

Mel,
Great post. You explain your opinions really well.

Thanks, I do try to be clear. I also enjoy these discussions.

I had to deal with this issue a couple of weeks ago and someone referred
me to a site that explained terms such as genus, species and family. I
graduated from college over 20 years ago so had forgotten those terms. I
majored in psychology.

Sure. The actual named ranks are of course subjective and artificial,
but the key thing is that there is an apparently natural nested
hierarchy everywhere we look in biology. Groups within groups within
groups; species within genera within families within orders, etc. It
doesn't matter so much whether we call the deer group a "family" and
name it "Cervidae", but it is clear that this group exists and that
it contains the species that it does. It is also clear for very
similar reasons that it belongs to a very well-marked higher group
[one that we've called an "order" and named "Artiodactyla"] that also
contains similarly well-marked groups that are clearly related to but
separate from Cervidae [like the family Bovidae or the family
Giraffidae]. It's also clear that this higher group "Artiodactyla" is
itself a member of a much larger group of placental mammals, along
with primates and bats and rodents and hedgehogs, etc. And so forth.

It makes perfect sense to "evolutionists" that things always show this
nested hierarchy of groups within groups within groups within groups,
since it is the natural consequence of a treelike branching genealogy
and history of common ancestry. Creationists don't really have an
explanation for the existence of this pattern [well, other than "God
must've wanted things to be that way"], but the pattern was recognized
long before its evolutionary explanation was formulated. Of course,
you don't have to accept the evolutionary basis for the patterns to be
able to use them in making classifications-- I've known a very few
scientists who were creationists for purely religious reasons, but who
still did phylogenetic analyses of the apparent evolutionary
relationships among the organisms they studied. The methods of analysis
worked for them as well as they do for 'evolutionists'.

And of course pre-Darwinian scientists still classified things in much
the same groups, even if they didn't yethave the explanation for them.
Recall that Linnaeus himself classified the apes together with humans.

In creation science, we use the term "kind" since that it the term used in
the Bible. The term that appears to me to be the closest to "kind" is
"family" (eg deer "Cervidae" family).

In the newsgroup talk.origins [which is where this discussion really
should be moved], I used to argue with a creationist who claimed just
that, but then there were others who would sometimes make the "kind"
be equivalent to much smaller groups [genera or single species] or
much higher groups [classes, phyla, even kingdoms apparently]. These
latter creationists might say things like "but it's still a bacterium!",
or "it's still an insect!".

[or "So plants evolved into plants, how thrilling!" as I vaguely recall
someone saying recently]

So, the question remains -- how do we decide that the elusive "kind"
is in fact closest to the "family", at least among hooved mammals?
Why isn't it closer to the species or the genus, or the phylum or
kingdom or "all life on earth"? What are the criteria for recognizing
these "kinds" and their limits and boundaries? Are there reliable
ways to tell if two organisms are in different "kinds" or in the same
"kind", just by studying them, criteria that anybody can use and get
consistent results whether they accept creationism or not?

Conclusion: I don't believe that
animals can evolve except within their own family. In other words, deer
will remain in the Cervidae family--even if they evolve into a new
species--that's micro-evolution.

But since in modern cladistic classifications Cervidae is defined as
the set of all the descendants of a particular common ancestor, that
will always be true by definition. The same thing is true for groups
higher and lower in the system. All descendants of vertebrates will
belong to Vertebrata. All descendants of animals will belong to
Metazoa. This doesn't limit the amount of evolutionary change
possible for future descendants of Cervidae-- any future molelike or
batlike or whalelike deer descendants would still belong to the group
"Cervidae" by definition [not that any such changes seem likely].

Another point here is to remind you that humans and apes are
also classified together in the same family Hominidae, so presumably
that's one case where nearly all creationists will want to make an
exception about "kind" limits.

Again, new species formation is "macroevolution" by definition.
Speciation is arguably the only essential macroevolutionary phenomenon.
Macroevolution in even the grandest sense is reducible to the
cumulative results of microevolution [= changes within one species],
plus the cumulative results of speciations, plus the cumulative effects
of extinction of many of the resulting branch lineages.

If you want an excellent summary of
creation science, visit:
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/fossearl.html

Thanks, but I think that if you learn more about evolution vs.
"creation science" you may eventually come to feel that you've
been systematically lied to and cheated.

The talk.origins site etc. is also highly recommended.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolutio...beginners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/o...ks-gensci.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/o...html#evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu

cheers

mel,
Thanks for your post. I agree that the classification that you mentioned
is the best way to classify animals and plants. I recall having to learn
some of the basic terms for major animal groups (eg canine, bovine, eg)
while in a college biology class. I agree with most all of the
classifications that have been made. I could not have done a better job.
It's not perfect and one of the other posters told me that various changes
(related to how plants and animals are classified) are made almost every
year. The only area of disagreement is the way that humans are classified.
It's my opinion that humans and apes should be in separate families due to
the differences between humans and apes. I realize that evolutionists
don't agree with me related to this issue. I realize that humans and apes
will continue to remain in the same family since evolutionists control the
classification process--Having apes and humans in the same family is in
harmony with evolution theory.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.