Black Leopard-Macroevoulution ?

AttentionKMartShoppers · Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:12 pm

sandy_mcd wrote:
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I sense a trap....yes?
Exactly, you are correct, it is a setup, and you know where I am going, so you already have a response, which you can post as soon as I figure out how to include pictures rather than links.
Humans have a penchant for putting things into boxes, even if there is a continuum of categories. For examples, race, grades, whatever.

False analogy.

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:14 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:False analogy.

Care to explain why ?

AttentionKMartShoppers · Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:21 pm

Because microevolution causes variations in what already exists, nothing new is formed-microevolution doesn't change the morphology of a species either. Macroevolution, though, includes the creation of new information, as well change in morphology.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:25 pm

Gosh playing with pictures is so fun.

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:39 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You're comparing apples and oranges.

I will leave that for the biologists to respond to as I am pretty ignorant in that area. But I can can ask you what the basis for your claims is. I gave you an example of how small changes can result in big changes without any obvious transitions. You say that such reasoning does not apply to animals which can only express some inherent range of types they started with. What is the basis for your statement ?
But yes, I am comparing apples and oranges. Doesn't anyone of a biologic bent know what the last common ancestor of apples and oranges was (and when) ?

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:44 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:[Sinusoidal plot with macroevolution-labelled dot on it.]

You're going to have to supply the thousand words because I don't see what a sine wave has to do with macroevolution.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:55 pm

sandy_mcd wrote:
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:[Sinusoidal plot with macroevolution-labelled dot on it.]
You're going to have to supply the thousand words because I don't see what a sine wave has to do with macroevolution.

It was a joke referring to the fact you're talking about two different things...

AttentionKMartShoppers · Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:58 pm

But yes, I am comparing apples and oranges. Doesn't anyone of a biologic bent know what the last common ancestor of apples and oranges was (and when) ?

It is an expression, a figure of speech.

I gave you an example of how small changes can result in big changes without any obvious transitions.

Yes, you have proven to all that one color can become another color through small changes.

You say that such reasoning does not apply to animals which can only express some inherent range of types they started with. What is the basis for your statement ?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, and, hey, no fair editing posts after I've begun responding ot them (only I can do that). But, if I'm reading you right...which I'm probably not...it's because, as I saild, microevolution doesn't create new information nor does it create a new morphology, at al, or even come close to getting to something new...but macro requires those.

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:21 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
...comparing apples and oranges.
It is an expression, a figure of speech.

I realize that. But when I was looking up some stuff to respond to you, I ran across this:

http://www.floridata.com/tracks/misc/plant_names.htm wrote: Note from the heirarchy above that the crabapple is in the rose family, Rosaceae. Even though they don't look much alike, apples and roses are closely related. (You should never, however, compare apples and oranges.)

When Robert Frost learned how many different species were in the rose family was he was moved to write a poem:
THE ROSE FAMILY

The rose is a rose,
And was always a rose.
But the theory now goes
That the apple's a rose,
And the pear is, and so's
The plum I suppose.
The dear only knows
What will next prove a rose.
You, of course, are a rose -
But were always a rose.

Robert Frost

And I got to thinking, why not compare apples and oranges ? If this evolution stuff is true, then there must be some common ancestor to apples and oranges. I couldn't find anything on that (only something not too comprehensible on ancestor to flowering plants).

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:24 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:hey, no fair editing posts after I've begun responding ot them

Sorry about that. I usually only edit to correct typos or clarify something and then only shortly after posting. I didn't think that one all the way through before submission.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:41 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, and, hey, no fair editing posts after I've begun responding ot them (only I can do that). But, if I'm reading you right...which I'm probably not...it's because, as I saild, microevolution doesn't create new information nor does it create a new morphology, at al, or even come close to getting to something new...but macro requires those.

Hmmm, no new morphology and no new information? Do you have proof for this?

New morphology.
http://www.bristol-aquarists.org.uk/gol ... ubble3.jpg
http://terrificpets.com/images/uploads/ ... adv104.jpg

New Information
This bacteria posseses an enzyme which can metabolize polyester.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... tid=124672

First what do you mean by new information? And what is new information?

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Nov 27, 2005 12:55 pm

Dog and blurry fish...

BGood, teaching us all to not be so vague, or else he'll find something.