Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in the Philippines?
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 24 of 29 (188384)
02-25-2005 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Aximili23
02-25-2005 5:09 AM


Re: what do you think?
Aximili23 writes:
Weren't the concepts of micro and macro-evolution invented by creationists? I've never heard of these terms being used in mainstream science, other than in the context of a debate with creationists. I thought these terms were only created so that creationists can attack large-scale evolution without being refuted by the fact that small-scale evolution has been repeatedly observed. But as I understand it, scientists don't normally find it necessary to make a distinction between the two. Right?
Actually, as I recall my high school biology text book (back when I was in the dark ages) used the terms micro and macro evo. I can't remember the contents, though.
Can someone else verify this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Aximili23, posted 02-25-2005 5:09 AM Aximili23 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by custard, posted 02-25-2005 5:44 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 29 (188389)
02-25-2005 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Aximili23
02-25-2005 5:09 AM


Re: what do you think?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleontologists, however, have failed to dig up any fossils of species at intermediate stages of evolution and this problem has been known as the "missing link."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't this also patently untrue?
Depends on your definition of 'intermediate.' Some would argue that Archeopteryx (sp sorry) is a perfect example of an intermediate fossil, most creationists seem to disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Aximili23, posted 02-25-2005 5:09 AM Aximili23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Aximili23, posted 02-26-2005 7:54 AM custard has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 29 (188390)
02-25-2005 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by coffee_addict
02-25-2005 5:14 AM


Re: what do you think?
Stephen Gould talks about micro and macro evolution.
This is what talkorigins.org says:
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by coffee_addict, posted 02-25-2005 5:14 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 29 (188668)
02-26-2005 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by custard
02-25-2005 5:42 AM


Re: what do you think?
Depends on your definition of 'intermediate.' Some would argue that Archeopteryx (sp sorry) is a perfect example of an intermediate fossil, most creationists seem to disagree.
You're right of course, but I think it's safe to say that mainstream science agrees with the validity of such fossils. From what I've read in other threads, the creationist arguments against the 'intermediate' or 'transitional' nature of these fossils are far from convincing. In fact, I've never even encountered a creationist who was willing to explain what a valid transitional fossil would be like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by custard, posted 02-25-2005 5:42 AM custard has not replied

  
Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 29 (188669)
02-26-2005 8:03 AM


anybody else?
Can anybody else give their take on the article I put up in the OP? I'm planning to write the editors who published the article; but before I do I'm really interested in hearing what others have to say. After all, if I point out any inaccurate or misleading points in the article, I want to be sure that I'm right. I'd also like to see if anybody thinks that this is a real attempt to introduce creationism/ID in Philippine high schools. I may be overreacting to a little thing, after all.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by coffee_addict, posted 03-01-2005 1:43 AM Aximili23 has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 29 of 29 (189391)
03-01-2005 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Aximili23
02-26-2005 8:03 AM


Re: anybody else?
The problem I see is that the article was written for the purpose of easy-to-digest. Like I said before, the points made by the article aren't exactly wrong. They're just not the whole story. If the author wanted to make it more clear, he would have gone much more into detail. I'm not sure if the end result would be as easy to digest as the current version.
Take the fossil record, for example. Does the average person in the Philippines actually know what fossil is? Heck, does the average person in the USA know what a fossil is?
Now that I think about it, I don't think the author could have done that much more than what he wrote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Aximili23, posted 02-26-2005 8:03 AM Aximili23 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024