Best Comebacks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-12-2011, 01:16 AM
Best Comebacks
Does anyone know of some great comebacks to creationists who argue for "microevolution" instead of "Macroevolution". Does anyone have a "zinger" or one-liner to send creationists (& their shameful argument) back to the cave?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2011, 08:19 AM
RE: Best Comebacks
Ask them to define macroevolution. It is simply the culmination of microevolution, as in, many small changes amount to large change. I've never even met a person face to face that tries to use this argument. I think it takes an extraordinary kind of stupid, and there just can't be very many people in this world that can achieve that level.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stark Raving's post
30-12-2011, 08:50 AM
RE: Best Comebacks
My understanding is that "microevolution" is changes on a small level within a species while "macroevolution" is larger changes between species. Right?

If that is the case then both are correct as the major changes are culminations of very small changes within species. Dawkins explains this very well in his book "The Magic of Reality". Where generations of a small time period can reproduce with one another but take that further out and they can't. For instance generation 10 can reproduce with generation 20, and 20 with 30 and 30 with 40 . . . but generation 100 can't reproduce with generation 10.

If this is all correct then say "I'm glad you agree with me."

.
I wasn't . . . until I was
I am . . . until I'm not
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2011, 09:50 AM
RE: Best Comebacks
(30-12-2011 08:19 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Ask them to define macroevolution. It is simply the culmination of microevolution, as in, many small changes amount to large change. I've never even met a person face to face that tries to use this argument. I think it takes an extraordinary kind of stupid, and there just can't be very many people in this world that can achieve that level.

...sorry to interrupt but I just wanted to point out that I think Egor has achieved that level.

Thank you, I'm done. Sorry to interrupt.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ddrew's post
30-12-2011, 10:08 AM
RE: Best Comebacks
I agree. Fortunately, all of the people I've encountered that reach that level have been on the internet. I think they secretly know they are stupid, and so when they are exposed to people in real life they keep their mouths shut for fear of revealing how idiotic they really are.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stark Raving's post
30-12-2011, 10:41 AM
RE: Best Comebacks
(30-12-2011 08:50 AM)free2011 Wrote:  My understanding is that "microevolution" is changes on a small level within a species while "macroevolution" is larger changes between species. Right?

If that is the case then both are correct as the major changes are culminations of very small changes within species. Dawkins explains this very well in his book "The Magic of Reality". Where generations of a small time period can reproduce with one another but take that further out and they can't. For instance generation 10 can reproduce with generation 20, and 20 with 30 and 30 with 40 . . . but generation 100 can't reproduce with generation 10.

If this is all correct then say "I'm glad you agree with me."

Your understanding is not quite accurate. There is no micro- or macro-evolution; there is just evolution. The creationist/ID differentiation is founded on the Biblical, non-scientific concept of "kinds".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2011, 10:52 AM
RE: Best Comebacks
(30-12-2011 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-12-2011 08:50 AM)free2011 Wrote:  My understanding is that "microevolution" is changes on a small level within a species while "macroevolution" is larger changes between species. Right?

If that is the case then both are correct as the major changes are culminations of very small changes within species. Dawkins explains this very well in his book "The Magic of Reality". Where generations of a small time period can reproduce with one another but take that further out and they can't. For instance generation 10 can reproduce with generation 20, and 20 with 30 and 30 with 40 . . . but generation 100 can't reproduce with generation 10.

If this is all correct then say "I'm glad you agree with me."

Your understanding is not quite accurate. There is no micro- or macro-evolution; there is just evolution. The creationist/ID differentiation is founded on the Biblical, non-scientific concept of "kinds".

Thats what I was trying to say. That they essentially believe the same thing. So are you saying micro is not a physical change? How does the bible describe micro? Thank you for the education

.
I wasn't . . . until I was
I am . . . until I'm not
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2011, 10:52 AM
RE: Best Comebacks
Most will say that microevolution doesn't change what the animal is. They will try and cite Darwin's finches and say that even though there was observed change the finches retained their "finchiness". Ask them if that's the case, then how did the finches speciate? The finches aggressively evolved and speciated which prevent sexual reproduction in the finches that once were able to reproduce. If microevolution was true, then how could this happen? Microevolution cannot coexist with speciation.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
30-12-2011, 11:22 AM (This post was last modified: 30-12-2011 11:25 AM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Best Comebacks
Well, smart ass remarks don't prove anything. At best you will only be stooping to their level.

You have provided the evidence of evolution in action, they are the ones who have to explain why they think the ball started rolling on the side of the hill rather than from the top. Also, be sure to point out they are curving evidence to make their beliefs fit, something to point out.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NotSoVacuous's post
30-12-2011, 11:28 AM
RE: Best Comebacks
Dawkins has a good explanation as well in his book the Blind Watchmaker. He does say that while most of evolution takes place over very may almost imperceptible changes/mutations over very long periods of time, a large mutation is possible. However, the larger the mutation the more risky it is. If it's a large mutation, it very likely will decrease the chance of survival and reproduction. The chances of a large mutation being beneficial are vanishingly small. Most large mutations are simply repetition of genes already present rather than new instructions being mutated.

So yeah, in the case of Creationists, what they think is macro-evolution really simply is micro-evolution. This is one reason why Behe is so wrong about irreducible complexity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: