How can you deny evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2010, 04:31 PM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(11-09-2010 09:29 AM)TruthAddict Wrote:  I just don't think people can fathom what 4 billion years means. It is such a long time frame that it seems unreasonable to the human mind. We are used to thinking on human time scales. Go back more than a few thousand years and the intervals lose meaning to us. I think that is why the concept of a fixed, few thousand year old world is so enticing and satisfying to so many.

Obvious some people can fathom such a long time span. Your comment made me realize that you need a free mind to go there. Substitute the word people with the term unfree mind, and your statement is perfectly true. (I believe that this is what you meant).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2010, 05:09 PM
 
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(11-09-2010 04:31 PM)No J. Wrote:  
(11-09-2010 09:29 AM)TruthAddict Wrote:  I just don't think people can fathom what 4 billion years means. It is such a long time frame that it seems unreasonable to the human mind. We are used to thinking on human time scales. Go back more than a few thousand years and the intervals lose meaning to us. I think that is why the concept of a fixed, few thousand year old world is so enticing and satisfying to so many.

Obvious some people can fathom such a long time span. Your comment made me realize that you need a free mind to go there. Substitute the word people with the term unfree mind, and your statement is perfectly true. (I believe that this is what you meant).

Yeah thanks.
Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2010, 12:01 AM
 
RE: How can you deny evolution?
They may think they do, but perhaps have not read enough or have been fed misinformation. The second class includes and perhaps believe, but only flat Denys anyway because it does not conform to their religious beliefs. Am I wrong to assume that the dichotomy?
Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2010, 12:17 AM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(15-09-2010 12:01 AM)kimsmarkin Wrote:  They may think they do, but perhaps have not read enough or have been fed misinformation. The second class includes and perhaps believe, but only flat Denys anyway because it does not conform to their religious beliefs. Am I wrong to assume that the dichotomy?

Deniers of eveolution have:
1. Not learned or read enough about evolution.
2. Not learned or read anything about evolution.
3. Been fed disinformation and lies about evolution.
4. Learned about evolution and rejected it because it conflicts with their beliefs.
5. Learned about evolution and rejected it because they have been told to or they gave into peer pressure.
6. Many combinations of the above list.

I hope this answers your question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2010, 10:22 PM
 
RE: How can you deny evolution?
Let's be a little bit careful about this. There is adaptation and there is evolution. First note that both happen to groups (species & subgroups) of animals, not individuals.

Creationists don't demur to adaptation. That is where, given a minor change in the environment, certain individuals as they are are always better suited to the change. Mutation is not required (though it may occur); just the variance in the gene pool will usually do. In the case of dogs, the "minor environmental change" is human artificial selection, or breeding. In addition, recently under-utilized traits (like the wolf's shaggy coat) still has largely intact genes that are not being expressed, but which could reimpose themselves quickly in the event that dogs return to the wild. These changes have not resulted in any major change to the wolf's genes, just change in emphasis and selection based on some of the sports out there. This kind of thing can happen over a relatively few generations.

True evolution moves beyond the variations available in the group to foster new mutations that had not existed before. An excellent example is the nylon eating bacteria. Eating nylon was, of course, not a variation in any bacteria before it existed in the wild; it is not an adaptation. It has been shown to have occurred by a single gene mutation, allowing for the creation of the enzyme nylonase. Now it is in some part of the bacterial genome and probably spreading as a useful trait. If nylon continues in the environment, it will likely mutate some more in the future and become better at creating an efficient enzyme. This sort of change takes a lot longer, and usually requires many complimentary mutations to make a useful trait. An investigation of the "warm blooded" trait that mammals have shows that it is a hugely multifaceted creation, taking on many different tiny traits in almost every system in the body to pull off successfully. These sorts of things take at least tens of thousands of years to produce; warm-bloodedness" started out in the "reptile like mammals" such as Dimetrodon, 280 million years ago. It is still being tweaked, with human hairlessness and sweating a recent result.

This is the sort of change that creationists deny. A lot of non-biologists (and I am one of them) have been known to say that there is no difference between micro- and macro-evolution, but if these equate to adaptation and evolution, then they are wrong, and the creationists are correct in pointing out a dichotomy. They become wrong when they say that macro-evolution doesn't happen.
Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 02:13 AM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
I always thought that at least some of micro evolution was a small scale macro evolution. Have I been totally wrong about this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 03:09 AM
 
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(19-09-2010 10:22 PM)puncheex Wrote:  Let's be a little bit careful about this. There is adaptation and there is evolution. First note that both happen to groups (species & subgroups) of animals, not individuals.

Creationists don't demur to adaptation. That is where, given a minor change in the environment, certain individuals as they are are always better suited to the change. Mutation is not required (though it may occur); just the variance in the gene pool will usually do. In the case of dogs, the "minor environmental change" is human artificial selection, or breeding. In addition, recently under-utilized traits (like the wolf's shaggy coat) still has largely intact genes that are not being expressed, but which could reimpose themselves quickly in the event that dogs return to the wild. These changes have not resulted in any major change to the wolf's genes, just change in emphasis and selection based on some of the sports out there. This kind of thing can happen over a relatively few generations.

True evolution moves beyond the variations available in the group to foster new mutations that had not existed before. An excellent example is the nylon eating bacteria. Eating nylon was, of course, not a variation in any bacteria before it existed in the wild; it is not an adaptation. It has been shown to have occurred by a single gene mutation, allowing for the creation of the enzyme nylonase. Now it is in some part of the bacterial genome and probably spreading as a useful trait. If nylon continues in the environment, it will likely mutate some more in the future and become better at creating an efficient enzyme. This sort of change takes a lot longer, and usually requires many complimentary mutations to make a useful trait. An investigation of the "warm blooded" trait that mammals have shows that it is a hugely multifaceted creation, taking on many different tiny traits in almost every system in the body to pull off successfully. These sorts of things take at least tens of thousands of years to produce; warm-bloodedness" started out in the "reptile like mammals" such as Dimetrodon, 280 million years ago. It is still being tweaked, with human hairlessness and sweating a recent result.

This is the sort of change that creationists deny. A lot of non-biologists (and I am one of them) have been known to say that there is no difference between micro- and macro-evolution, but if these equate to adaptation and evolution, then they are wrong, and the creationists are correct in pointing out a dichotomy. They become wrong when they say that macro-evolution doesn't happen.

Interesting point, and one well worth making, but - I would guess, without knowing for sure (I'm not a biologist, either) that genes for resistance to many new antibiotics, for example, were not in the original gene pools of most microorganisms. The introduction of these antibiotics on a wide scale is pretty new to the scene, so it seems unlikely that they already would have resistance genes in the pool. As I understand it, true evolution based on mutations occurs in microevolution, not just adaptations from within an existing gene pool.

Evolution is adaptation, taken to the next level.

It's true that the huge variety of dogs all have been created from the original wolf genes, as so are pretty much all capable of interbreeding. Thus, they are still all members of the same species (as are we humans). No one has documented the emergence of an an entirely new species from microevolution (or selective breeding), to my knowledge - where the new species is no longer capable of breeding with its progenitor species. That step has yet to be made, although the paleontological evidence for speciation by evolution is pretty compelling. Only if we can document the emergence of an entirely new species from microevolution will the evidence for speciation by evolution be complete. It may be possible in the future ...

Is there anyone on the list who's deeply knowledgeable about evolution?
Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 06:47 AM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(10-09-2010 06:49 PM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  I mean, lets have a simple evidence: Domestic animals, more specifically the dog.

What are creationists thinking?

I know that there are some of the creationists that would not have a problem with this. They would say that the domestication of animals are a product of artificial selection and that it can not be used as proof of natural selection.
Darwin actually used artificial selection as a "warm up" to natural selection in the Origin Of Species.

To No J
Micro/Macro evolution are creationist terms.
Micro evolution is in my opinion a useless term ignorant people use to appear smarter than they really are, since it simply means "evolution". simple as that.
Macro evolution is the same as speciation.
The reason they use these different terms is because it makes it easier have it sound like they are to different theories. calling it micro/macro makes it sound like there are to opposing theories.

I would also recommend that you read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. One of the more interesting and educational books I have ever read.

http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Eart...605&sr=8-1

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 07:17 AM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
Puncheex Wrote:Let's be a little bit careful about this. There is adaptation and there is evolution.
2buckchuck already stated that evolution is adaption, which it is, but I'd like to hear what makes you think they're two different things?

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 08:58 AM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
Quote:It's true that the huge variety of dogs all have been created from the original wolf genes, as so are pretty much all capable of interbreeding. Thus, they are still all members of the same species (as are we humans). No one has documented the emergence of an an entirely new species from microevolution (or selective breeding), to my knowledge - where the new species is no longer capable of breeding with its progenitor species. That step has yet to be made, although the paleontological evidence for speciation by evolution is pretty compelling. Only if we can document the emergence of an entirely new species from microevolution will the evidence for speciation by evolution be complete. It may be possible in the future ...

Well, considering this has happened in nature over millions of years, I doubt we will be able to create it ourselves.

Also, interesting you use the dog example. I saw a thing on dogs a long time ago on one of the nature channels and it discussed about the origins of dogs from wolves. Anyway, in areas where you have feral dogs they tend to, within a few generations, revert back to a more wolf like animal and don't retain any of the traits that were bred into them. I found that very interesting that traits that came about due to breeding vs. natural selection were not retained.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Are we impacting our own evolution? Impulse 55 746 26-05-2014 08:25 PM
Last Post: cjlr
  Is Evolution a Belief? (Clearly Not) Forthright Atheist 28 468 23-05-2014 05:05 PM
Last Post: dancefortwo
  Is American Evolution Education Good Enough? (Teachers and Professors Only Please) carasaurus_wres 2 77 25-04-2014 09:22 PM
Last Post: jaguar3030
  Evolution in the Classroom Survey carasaurus_wres 10 206 24-04-2014 05:56 AM
Last Post: wazzel
  Evolution test #2 Full Circle 14 199 10-04-2014 12:13 PM
Last Post: Full Circle
  Evolution test #1 Full Circle 9 106 09-04-2014 08:28 PM
Last Post: ghostexorcist
  The Evolution of Morality ghostexorcist 3 119 06-04-2014 10:32 PM
Last Post: Jeffasaurus
Forum Jump: