How can you deny evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2010, 04:36 AM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
Quote:I wasn't denying mutations
I did'nt mean you'd be denying mutations, you just seemed to think that adaption is'nt evolution, that only evolution by mutation is evolution. So, I've gotten something wrong again?:F

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
23-09-2010, 02:12 PM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(21-09-2010 11:00 PM)puncheex Wrote:  Adaptation (creationists' micro-evolution) is making use of the group diversity and possibly reusing recently cast off genes to adapt to some change in the environment. Evolution (macro-evolution) is use of mutation, as opposed to existing diversity, to effect a better fit to the environment. Most creationists are cool with the former, but deny the latter happens.

I have watched quite a considerable number of debates on this topic during the last few years, but I have never heard a creationist use this definition of micro/macro evolution. They define micro evolution as change within a species, and macro evolution as one species changing in to another. At least that is what they say in public debates. I find the "reusing cast of genes" part of your post quite interesting. I never heard it before, but it kind of makes sense. that would explain how they can believe in lifeforms being capable of changing a little bit, but not enough to become a new species.
To get a proper grip on "creation theory" is not easy. Especially since Amazon wont ship "of pandas and people" to Norway. Undecided

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
23-09-2010, 09:27 PM
 
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(23-09-2010 02:12 PM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  I have watched quite a considerable number of debates on this topic during the last few years, but I have never heard a creationist use this definition of micro/macro evolution. They define micro evolution as change within a species, and macro evolution as one species changing in to another. At least that is what they say in public debates. I find the "reusing cast of genes" part of your post quite interesting. I never heard it before, but it kind of makes sense. that would explain how they can believe in lifeforms being capable of changing a little bit, but not enough to become a new species.
To get a proper grip on "creation theory" is not easy. Especially since Amazon wont ship "of pandas and people" to Norway. Undecided

True enough. But after you get into it a bit, the reason why micro-evolution is given a pass is because it is doesn't use random mutation. This is from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) website:

ICR Wrote:Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.

...

Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed....

Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking.

(http://www.icr.org/article/what-differen...roevolut/)

And thus I have used adaptation/evolution where the ICR uses micro-evolution/macro-evolution. I think this is appropriate, although it is difficult to determine without a before/after genome to determine whether a change really is adaptation or evolution.

As for adaptation specifically, wiki has a good explanation on it under "Adaptation". In re-reading it for this posting, I find that my examples have specific names that I probably should use:

flexibility - the ability of an organism or group to make use of outlying traits to cope with environmental change; this could even include migrating to a different environment, down to formerly neutral mutations which suddenly take on a meaning (though, of course, creationists deny that is possible).
exaptation - the co-option of existing traits to serve new purposes.
Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2010, 12:19 AM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
Creationist's arguements, that try to prove that evolution is wrong, are evolving. How ironic. They seem to be slowly accepting evolution at a pace that makes contiental drift look like a super sonic jet. It took 150 years to get them to accept micro evolution at its most basic level. At this rate they will all be converted by about 2250 AD.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2010, 01:25 PM
 
RE: How can you deny evolution?
If you accept micro evolution, then given enough time, this will produce the macro effects that we see. Is that a hard concept to grasp? Oh wait, the universe is 6000 years old so there wasn't enough time for that to happen. Gotcha.
Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2010, 03:52 AM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(24-09-2010 01:25 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  If you accept micro evolution, then given enough time, this will produce the macro effects that we see. Is that a hard concept to grasp? Oh wait, the universe is 6000 years old so there wasn't enough time for that to happen. Gotcha.

If you use the definitions that puncheeks have quoted on what micro/macro evolution means, then micro evolution could never lead to macro evolution.
This is why I feel that we should not use these words in serious discussions concerning evolution. They are the creationists tools for confusing the discussion so that we no longer know what we are discussing. Evolution, adaptation, specieation and so forth are the kind of words we should use because they have actual meaning. Macro/micro evolution is just pseudo scientific nonsense.

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
29-09-2010, 04:33 AM
 
RE: How can you deny evolution?
I prefer to think of this as co-opting the terms to have a new meaning, outside the creationist sphere. I specifically like thinking of 'micro-evolution' as that associated with organisms like bacteria and insects, which have enormous numbers of individuals, vast genetic diversity, and relatively short lifetimes. Evolution involves both adaptation from within the existing material in the gene pool, and mutations that create new material therein.

For such organisms, evolution operates relatively rapidly, with at least one generation (and in some cases, many more) per year. We can observe evolutionary processes easily and their effects can be documented in detail.

I would think of 'macro-evolution' as a term appropriate for organisms with longer life cycles, so evolution necessarily proceeds more slowly, and it's more difficult to document the changes. Although it's believed that cats and dogs once had a common ancestor, we've not been able to see the process in action and the fossil record has enough gaps that the creationists have some wiggle room to argue that it was god who created the distinctly different species - not evolution.

Whereas we easily can see adaptations (possibly associated with mutations) via what I'm describing as micro-evolution (e.g., the rapid emergence of antibiotic resistance), it may someday be possible to document in detail the emergence of a wholly new species out of some organism's micro-evolution - that is, the tracing of its evolutionary tree from some common ancestor to the micro-equivalent of cats and dogs.
Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2010, 06:10 AM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
I had a friend of mine turn Atheist after going to college. He told me one wild story the church came up with regarding evolution. That church told the congregation that the devil placed dinosaur bones in the ground to get people to think they really existed. The same held true for the evolutionary pattern of the human skull. Geesh!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2010, 02:49 PM
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(29-09-2010 06:10 AM)Dave005 Wrote:  I had a friend of mine turn Atheist after going to college. He told me one wild story the church came up with regarding evolution. That church told the congregation that the devil placed dinosaur bones in the ground to get people to think they really existed. The same held true for the evolutionary pattern of the human skull. Geesh!

This sounds a lot like TFSMism.

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
03-10-2010, 02:28 PM
 
RE: How can you deny evolution?
(29-09-2010 06:10 AM)Dave005 Wrote:  I had a friend of mine turn Atheist after going to college. He told me one wild story the church came up with regarding evolution. That church told the congregation that the devil placed dinosaur bones in the ground to get people to think they really existed. The same held true for the evolutionary pattern of the human skull. Geesh!

...and there is another branch of Christianity that maintains they were placed there by god to test us, to see if our faith is strong enough to overcome our hubris in the possession of our intellect. Or that god simply made it all to look like it is billions of years old, including planting fossils, planting faked geology and planting fake light on it's way to use from more then, say, 6014 light years; making god your favorite fraternal (or sororal, I suppose) practical joker.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: