micro "versus" macro evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-08-2014, 03:22 PM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2014 03:26 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
micro "versus" macro evolution
This was this week's discussion in my evolution class and here was my submission...

What is the distinction between micro and macroevolution? Can one accept one idea and not the other?

I often hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution.

This is a heavily abused play on words. Allow me to expound. In debating circles we call it creating a straw man; a sham argument set up to be defeated, a common type of argument or informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument. To be successful, a strawman argument requires the audience to be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument or subject matter. The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacement with a different proposition and then to refute or defeat that false argument instead of the original proposition. This is a favorite tool of proponents of intelligent design or creationism.

The false distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution, are two terms often used by creationist in their pathetic and misinformed attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in a gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population. These changes which would not result in the newer organisms in considered as different species. For example; a change in coloring or size.

Macro evolution, and contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to make with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

Again, you can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will. This is the beginning of the strawman attack.

First let's look at the definition of the two terms and the use within the scientific community. When scientist use the terms microevolution and macro evolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationist. Why is this? This is because for biologist there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macro evolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do you use the different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons. When creationists use the terms however, it is for ontological reasons; which means they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. Creationist's act as if there’s some magic line between microevolution and macro evolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macro evolution is merely the result of lots of microevolution over a long period of time.

Basically creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which have specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error, as creationist misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis in their attempt to discredit empirical evidence in support of evolution.

In summary, evolution is a result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanism of operation and adaptation in all genes are the same.

When I find a creationist who tries to argue that microevolution can occur but microevolution cannot, I simply asked him/her what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter… and listen to the silence…and the stammering and stuttering to begin as they try to tap dance themselves out of the corner they got themselves into, yet again. I find it hard to accept that you can understand microevolution, and then somehow deny macroevolution, when they are both the same thing, just over different lengths of time.



“Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change” (Berkeley 2014)



Reference

Berkeley (2014) Understanding evolution.

Retrieved from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...oscales_01

--------------------------------
thoughts? counters? support? care to expound?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
03-08-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: micro "versus" macro evolution
(03-08-2014 03:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  This was this week's discussion in my evolution class and here was my submission...

What is the distinction between micro and macroevolution? Can one accept one idea and not the other?

I often hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution.

This is a heavily abused play on words. Allow me to expound. In debating circles we call it creating a straw man; a sham argument set up to be defeated, a common type of argument or informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument. To be successful, a strawman argument requires the audience to be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument or subject matter. The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacement with a different proposition and then to refute or defeat that false argument instead of the original proposition. This is a favorite tool of proponents of intelligent design or creationism.

The false distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution, are two terms often used by creationist in their pathetic and misinformed attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in a gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population. These changes which would not result in the newer organisms in considered as different species. For example; a change in coloring or size.

Macro evolution, and contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to make with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

Again, you can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will. This is the beginning of the strawman attack.

First let's look at the definition of the two terms and the use within the scientific community. When scientist use the terms microevolution and macro evolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationist. Why is this? This is because for biologist there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macro evolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do you use the different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons. When creationists use the terms however, it is for ontological reasons; which means they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. Creationist's act as if there’s some magic line between microevolution and macro evolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macro evolution is merely the result of lots of microevolution over a long period of time.

Basically creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which have specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error, as creationist misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis in their attempt to discredit empirical evidence in support of evolution.

In summary, evolution is a result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanism of operation and adaptation in all genes are the same.

When I find a creationist who tries to argue that microevolution can occur but microevolution cannot, I simply asked him/her what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter… and listen to the silence…and the stammering and stuttering to begin as they try to tap dance themselves out of the corner they got themselves into, yet again. I find it hard to accept that you can understand microevolution, and then somehow deny macroevolution, when they are both the same thing, just over different lengths of time.



“Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change” (Berkeley 2014)



Reference

Berkeley (2014) Understanding evolution.

Retrieved from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...oscales_01

--------------------------------
thoughts? counters? support? care to expound?

Macroevolution does not exist. It is, as you say, a strawman. "Microevolution" is all that ever happens that is what evolution is, gradual, cumulative, small changes over a vast gulf of time.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Revenant77x's post
03-08-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: micro "versus" macro evolution
(03-08-2014 03:35 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(03-08-2014 03:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  This was this week's discussion in my evolution class and here was my submission...

What is the distinction between micro and macroevolution? Can one accept one idea and not the other?

I often hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution.

This is a heavily abused play on words. Allow me to expound. In debating circles we call it creating a straw man; a sham argument set up to be defeated, a common type of argument or informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument. To be successful, a strawman argument requires the audience to be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument or subject matter. The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacement with a different proposition and then to refute or defeat that false argument instead of the original proposition. This is a favorite tool of proponents of intelligent design or creationism.

The false distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution, are two terms often used by creationist in their pathetic and misinformed attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in a gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population. These changes which would not result in the newer organisms in considered as different species. For example; a change in coloring or size.

Macro evolution, and contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to make with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

Again, you can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will. This is the beginning of the strawman attack.

First let's look at the definition of the two terms and the use within the scientific community. When scientist use the terms microevolution and macro evolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationist. Why is this? This is because for biologist there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macro evolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do you use the different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons. When creationists use the terms however, it is for ontological reasons; which means they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. Creationist's act as if there’s some magic line between microevolution and macro evolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macro evolution is merely the result of lots of microevolution over a long period of time.

Basically creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which have specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error, as creationist misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis in their attempt to discredit empirical evidence in support of evolution.

In summary, evolution is a result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanism of operation and adaptation in all genes are the same.

When I find a creationist who tries to argue that microevolution can occur but microevolution cannot, I simply asked him/her what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter… and listen to the silence…and the stammering and stuttering to begin as they try to tap dance themselves out of the corner they got themselves into, yet again. I find it hard to accept that you can understand microevolution, and then somehow deny macroevolution, when they are both the same thing, just over different lengths of time.



“Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change” (Berkeley 2014)



Reference

Berkeley (2014) Understanding evolution.

Retrieved from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...oscales_01

--------------------------------
thoughts? counters? support? care to expound?

Macroevolution does not exist. It is, as you say, a strawman. "Microevolution" is all that ever happens that is what evolution is, gradual, cumulative, small changes over a vast gulf of time.

I concur Smile

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2014, 06:43 PM
RE: micro "versus" macro evolution
(03-08-2014 03:35 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(03-08-2014 03:22 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  This was this week's discussion in my evolution class and here was my submission...

What is the distinction between micro and macroevolution? Can one accept one idea and not the other?

I often hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution.

This is a heavily abused play on words. Allow me to expound. In debating circles we call it creating a straw man; a sham argument set up to be defeated, a common type of argument or informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument. To be successful, a strawman argument requires the audience to be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument or subject matter. The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacement with a different proposition and then to refute or defeat that false argument instead of the original proposition. This is a favorite tool of proponents of intelligent design or creationism.

The false distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution, are two terms often used by creationist in their pathetic and misinformed attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in a gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population. These changes which would not result in the newer organisms in considered as different species. For example; a change in coloring or size.

Macro evolution, and contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to make with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

Again, you can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will. This is the beginning of the strawman attack.

First let's look at the definition of the two terms and the use within the scientific community. When scientist use the terms microevolution and macro evolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationist. Why is this? This is because for biologist there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macro evolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do you use the different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons. When creationists use the terms however, it is for ontological reasons; which means they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. Creationist's act as if there’s some magic line between microevolution and macro evolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macro evolution is merely the result of lots of microevolution over a long period of time.

Basically creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which have specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error, as creationist misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis in their attempt to discredit empirical evidence in support of evolution.

In summary, evolution is a result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanism of operation and adaptation in all genes are the same.

When I find a creationist who tries to argue that microevolution can occur but microevolution cannot, I simply asked him/her what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter… and listen to the silence…and the stammering and stuttering to begin as they try to tap dance themselves out of the corner they got themselves into, yet again. I find it hard to accept that you can understand microevolution, and then somehow deny macroevolution, when they are both the same thing, just over different lengths of time.



“Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change” (Berkeley 2014)



Reference

Berkeley (2014) Understanding evolution.

Retrieved from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...oscales_01

--------------------------------
thoughts? counters? support? care to expound?

Macroevolution does not exist. It is, as you say, a strawman. "Microevolution" is all that ever happens that is what evolution is, gradual, cumulative, small changes over a vast gulf of time.

You mean evolution exist, both terms were made to describe how far changes went, with micro in a population and macro from species levels and above. Though both are evolution anyway so it does not really matter.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2014, 08:06 PM
RE: micro "versus" macro evolution
Paragraph 7 : "mate" not "make".
Thumbsup
Good job. Keep this up and you can get into Doc's Sunday School this Fall. Angel

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2014, 04:53 AM
RE: micro "versus" macro evolution
(03-08-2014 08:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Paragraph 7 : "mate" not "make".
Thumbsup
Good job. Keep this up and you can get into Doc's Sunday School this Fall. Angel

Facepalm damnit! and I read through it like 5 times..sigh Weeping

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 02:28 PM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2014 02:58 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: micro "versus" macro evolution
So apparently my college professor ran my post through their plagiarism thingy and found it here. Today I log in and find this on my post in class...(for her privacy I will edit out her name)

RE: Module six Instructor ###### 8/8/2014 2:12:20 PM
Eric you need to redo this post if you want credit because the exact words you posted were found at this website: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...evolution, It is against school policy to copy and paste someone else's words and use them which is call Plagiarism.

So instructor, if you are reading this, yes, I am goodwithoutgod, and this was my thread, I wrote every single word of that post in class, and THEN posted it here because i found the topic so interesting I wanted to share it with my favorite fellow atheists. Smile

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
08-08-2014, 06:45 PM
RE: micro "versus" macro evolution
(08-08-2014 02:28 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  So apparently my college professor ran my post through their plagiarism thingy and found it here. Today I log in and find this on my post in class...(for her privacy I will edit out her name)

RE: Module six Instructor ###### 8/8/2014 2:12:20 PM
Eric you need to redo this post if you want credit because the exact words you posted were found at this website: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...evolution, It is against school policy to copy and paste someone else's words and use them which is call Plagiarism.

So instructor, if you are reading this, yes, I am goodwithoutgod, and this was my thread, I wrote every single word of that post in class, and THEN posted it here because i found the topic so interesting I wanted to share it with my favorite fellow atheists. Smile

You might humbly suggest that she check the fucking time stamp before she makes an utter ass of herself. Drinking Beverage

Just sayin'.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-08-2014, 06:58 PM
RE: micro "versus" macro evolution
Bullshit argument.

Would "Macro vs Micro" work

If it argued for Allah
If it argued for Yahweh
If it argued for Vishnu

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 07:49 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2014 11:47 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: micro "versus" macro evolution
(08-08-2014 06:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 02:28 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  So apparently my college professor ran my post through their plagiarism thingy and found it here. Today I log in and find this on my post in class...(for her privacy I will edit out her name)

RE: Module six Instructor ###### 8/8/2014 2:12:20 PM
Eric you need to redo this post if you want credit because the exact words you posted were found at this website: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...evolution, It is against school policy to copy and paste someone else's words and use them which is call Plagiarism.

So instructor, if you are reading this, yes, I am goodwithoutgod, and this was my thread, I wrote every single word of that post in class, and THEN posted it here because i found the topic so interesting I wanted to share it with my favorite fellow atheists. Smile

You might humbly suggest that she check the fucking time stamp before she makes an utter ass of herself. Drinking Beverage

Just sayin'.

ah well, simple misunderstanding, it happens Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: