Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Always talking about micro-evolution?
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 257 (75750)
12-30-2003 12:46 AM


From Re-enactments of the Noah's Ark voyage?, I have decided to create a new one.
Perhaps inspired by
Rrhain:
Nobody who studies evolution comes away with the idea that evolution explains the origin of life. Evolution doesn't care how life began. Life could have started in any way imaginable: ...
was this response:
whatever:
Rrhain, I actually feel most evolutionists are actually intelligent design people, for you all seem to talk about is micro-evolution, and you confessed you don't care about how it started,...
However, mainstream evolutionary biologists believe that all of the Earth's biota shares one ancestor, a microbe that lived early in the Earth's history. That would mean that, in creationist terms, all of Earth life is one baramin ("created kind"). "whatever", do you accept that?
P.S. It is interesting though how micro-evolution supports the generations of life since the biblical flood, how life naturally diversifies by the forces of natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, etc...
Which requires superfast evolution; as Hugh Ross has pointed out, YEC's are often hyperevolutionists.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by JonF, posted 02-02-2004 2:55 PM lpetrich has not replied
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-02-2004 3:09 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 2 of 257 (82156)
02-02-2004 2:09 PM


It's All Evolution, Babe
I declare a moratorium on using the term ‘microevolution’ or trying to define it as being distinct from ‘macroevolution’. Our creationist brethren here can’t deny that evolution takes place, so they’ve taken to limiting the extent of evolution to just what can be observed in a human lifetime. It reminds me of a bad lawyer claiming that his client’s fingerprints don’t prove he was at the crime scene, just that his fingers were.
Observed evolutionary change, as Talkorigins makes clear, is enough to convince any rational person of the power of Darwin’s variation-selection machine. These speciation events often constitute significant morphological change, even the switch from unicellularity to multicellularity in green algae. These events are remarkably clear illustrations of the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution in action, and I’m sick of seeing them sold short.
The ‘micro’ party’s over, creationists. You either accept evolution or you don’t.

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3 of 257 (82179)
02-02-2004 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lpetrich
12-30-2003 12:46 AM


Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Sverker Johansson's signature on T.O.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lpetrich, posted 12-30-2003 12:46 AM lpetrich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by MrHambre, posted 02-02-2004 3:23 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 6 by Mammuthus, posted 02-03-2004 3:49 AM JonF has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 4 of 257 (82185)
02-02-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lpetrich
12-30-2003 12:46 AM


Off-topic, but anyway...
quote:
However, mainstream evolutionary biologists believe that all of the Earth's biota shares one ancestor, a microbe that lived early in the Earth's history.
Perhaps a very minor quible, but I see no reason why there could not have been multiple biogenesis (note the lack of "a" at beginning) events. The earth's a big place - Why only one?
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lpetrich, posted 12-30-2003 12:46 AM lpetrich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dr Jack, posted 02-03-2004 5:57 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 5 of 257 (82189)
02-02-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by JonF
02-02-2004 2:55 PM


JonF,
The creationist definition of 'microevolution': significant change in a population or species that both illustrates the capabilities of evolutionary mechanisms and expands our understanding of the DNA copying process in the context of natural selection. Could produce major change over time but doesn't.

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JonF, posted 02-02-2004 2:55 PM JonF has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 6 of 257 (82481)
02-03-2004 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by JonF
02-02-2004 2:55 PM


I have to go with Mr. Hambre on this. I don't see where micro stops and macro begins. This seems to be some sort of reflexive defensive mechanism to criticism by the nitwits of creationism that is not justified. If I can observe genetic changes in bacteria, Drosophila, cichlids, etc. in my lifetime, can extract ancient DNA and analyze a a genetic time course that exceeds my lifetime, analyze fossils which greatly exceeds my lifetime, and see the identical mechanism at work, why the hell do I need to qualify the bacterial observations as micro and any transition that requires longer generation time as macro?
There is only evidence that evolution in the past worked as it does in the present and no evidence against it...what do creationists have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JonF, posted 02-02-2004 2:55 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Skeptick, posted 02-03-2004 11:33 AM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 23 by Skeptick, posted 02-03-2004 3:50 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 7 of 257 (82503)
02-03-2004 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
02-02-2004 3:09 PM


Re: Off-topic, but anyway...
Perhaps a very minor quible, but I see no reason why there could not have been multiple biogenesis (note the lack of "a" at beginning) events. The earth's a big place - Why only one?
Because life's tree would seem to have just one root, and all life uses a more or less common plan in certain fundementals (DNA, etc). However it could be that there was more than one event, and it's simply that only one survived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-02-2004 3:09 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 257 (82568)
02-03-2004 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Mammuthus
02-03-2004 3:49 AM


...I don't see where micro stops and macro begins. This seems to be some sort of reflexive defensive mechanism to criticism by the nitwits of creationism...
I'm new to this website but have read a multitude of posts on various topics. Just a quick question: Why do so many folks who seem to be evolutionists conduct personal attacks (whether major or minor) again creationists. (the above name-calling is just one mild example). Is that a good example of "respect for others".
[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Mammuthus, posted 02-03-2004 3:49 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 12:06 PM Skeptick has not replied
 Message 15 by DBlevins, posted 02-03-2004 12:58 PM Skeptick has not replied
 Message 16 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-03-2004 1:10 PM Skeptick has not replied
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 1:20 PM Skeptick has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 9 of 257 (82576)
02-03-2004 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Skeptick
02-03-2004 11:33 AM


Good point Skeptick. The majority here are evolutionist and all of the moderators are evolutionist. Need I say more?
Unfortunately, personal attacks happen when evolutionists worldview becomes in doubt. Also a failure to admitting one is wrong seems to be a very difficult thing for them, as they seem to agree that they are all right.
Trying to make a Creationist "point" can take atleast 10 posts and still they can be evasive at most. Though this is not true of all evolutionists here!!!! it is an unfortunate reality.
Oh, sorry - welcome to the forum!!
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Skeptick, posted 02-03-2004 11:33 AM Skeptick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2004 12:23 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 257 (82585)
02-03-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by mike the wiz
02-03-2004 12:06 PM


Mike, that is hardly an unbiased viewpoint you are putting forward.
For a start there WERE creationist moderators - it's not the fault of the site owner that they have left.
Creationists are at least as bad as refusing to admit that they are wrong (in my view far, far worse) and often use evasive "arguments" (see the "no new kinds" and "no new information" arguments where creationists refuse to adequately explain what they are talking about so as to avoid the risk of being proven wrong).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 12:06 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 12:28 PM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 257 (82587)
02-03-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
02-03-2004 12:23 PM


Certainly Creationists can also be guilty, but I think HERE the majority are evolutionist. I do not mean you (for example)- as, remember? I had to apologize for being bullish.
But unfortunately there are remarks made by your side which can insult the intelligence.
For e.g. I can now imagine an evo saying to that : " what intelligence "
Certainly there are more reasonable evolutionists like yourself, remember, I didn't say every evolutionist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2004 12:23 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2004 12:37 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 257 (82588)
02-03-2004 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
02-03-2004 12:28 PM


Yes, the majority here are evolutionists. Creationists tend to be found on creationist-run boards which often allow far less freedom to express opposing views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 12:28 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 12:47 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 12:47 PM PaulK has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 13 of 257 (82592)
02-03-2004 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
02-03-2004 12:37 PM


I'm creationist!
I've never went to those boards. And I wouldn't inhibit your freedom of an opposing view, but realise that I also have a view - that does NOT mean I am a 'dim wit' - for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2004 12:37 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2004 1:50 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 14 of 257 (82593)
02-03-2004 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
02-03-2004 12:37 PM


darn double post
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2004 12:37 PM PaulK has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 15 of 257 (82600)
02-03-2004 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Skeptick
02-03-2004 11:33 AM


Well, I don't believe that most of the posters here, either evolutionists or creationists, intend to be derisive in their comments. It happens though that there is a certain amount of frustration when you feel you have worked hard to educate yourself and someone who is unwilling to do so comes here and spouts out some mindless drivel over and over again without the decency to check their facts even when called on them.
I have always felt that the purpose of debate is not only come to a mutual understanding but to learn something. There seem to be a majority of creationists who refuse to educate themselves about what they are debating. I mean that they refuse to look into the many websites or god forbid read a book or peer reviewed journal that is presented to them as having a good scientific basis for evolution. I would hazard a bet that many if not all the evolutionists here have taken a look at the creationists literature or websites in order to understand or see where the arguments are coming from. At least to see if there might be the slight chance that there is some truth to be gleaned. It can be tiresome and irksome at the least, if not hairpullingly frustrating.
I do not believe that these attacks are meant to be as derisive as they seem. Just outbursts of frustration. By the way, if you continue to read through the various posts you will notice that the majority of posts(that I have seen) from creationists are as derisive if not more so. They can get downright nasty at times
[This message has been edited by DBlevins, 02-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Skeptick, posted 02-03-2004 11:33 AM Skeptick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2004 1:11 PM DBlevins has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024