Do you believe in macroevolution?

[Crystal..Discus]

im not trying to disprove anything, just saying it how it is, im not saying evolution isnt possible, just believe there had to be a alpha before the beta gamma delta. for evolution to work there still has to be a beginning.

You're saying that the timeline relating to the scientific theory of the big bang is incorrect, based on your belief in creationism. Yes? (Just clearing it up for everyone else in the thread.)

Creationism (the modern classification) was an attempt that started in the 1960's to stop people from questioning our beginnings. While I'm more than happy to debate with the many denominations in this world, I have almost zero respect for those that claim creationism is a logical, solid arguement for their beliefs. Christianity, Catholism... they're all about believing; that you can trust that there is a higher power watching over you, providing a moral compass for you to live by, and that when you die there's an after life waiting for you.

What's wrong with believing that there is something else out there, but also understanding that a BOOK WRITTEN BY HUMANS isn't a factual account? That maybe, just maybe, this ancient Earth, the universe, and everything beyond that is just so vast that it'll take us thousands of years (still) to comprehend? That it should be something to learn from, but not preach truth from?

Oh right, people are weak and gullible fools.

And for future reference, Science is a guide, not a religion. Stop behaving like it is one.

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

Hang on a sec there.... I teach science... Are you telling me I'm part of the brainwashing society that isn't the 'church'?

Don't you think churches brainwash our kids of the day in far worse fashion?

I teach just as many morals (if not more), open mindedness and above all scientific technique to analyse situations.

I NEVER (and I mean NEVER) just teach out of a text book - we do equations in physics out of a text book, we do some chemistry in a text book... Blah blah... But the stuff that is just 'theory' is absolute RUBBISH.

I've never misinterpret something like the photoelectric effect. I've never manipulated facts such as free falling and terminal velocity, but above all - I teach stuff that CAN and IS and HAS BEEN proved time and time again.

For example, I am currently teaching projectile motion to my year 12s (11 in Australia) - not only did I show theory, we do it for REAL in the class (limited wind resistance) and we get within 1% of the theoretical amounts for shooting darts across the room.

So - tell me, how am I brainwashing these kids again?

I'm meant to be in the hall now for a seminar with our younger cohort - but I am sure they're just being brainwashed too....

And BTW - the spin on earth is slowing - at one stage we had 23 hour days... Imagine that??? I'd say far from precision...

The Japanese earthquake and resulting Tsunami (of course caused by god to wipe out the infidels - ho also tried the same in a city aptly named Christchurch) slowed the earth considerably that day - the earth did pick back up again.

We gained a wobble on Boxing Day in 2004... Amazing really - think about - spinning perfectly and perfectly created is all an imaginary thing... Evolution is NOT imaginary and is proven time and time again.

this sounds a bit far fetched??? More info and PROOF...as you call it...

JPN there are many well respected religious scientists, religion and science are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to give up one for the other. Although you do have to question the literal interpretation of the bible which by the way was written, translated and copied by man, not God himself.

Totally agree with you that science and religion are not mutually exclusive...

 

[slim6y]

Proof of what exactly JPN? The time difference in a day after serious earthquakes?

Firstly I'll start off with - what do you know about rotational motion?

Let's take a great example of a merry-go-round with four places for individual kids to stand on opposite sides.

Let's start with all four kids on the outside of the merry-go-round and we'll get a decent runner to spin it for them.

Weeeeeee they go... As they spin around.

They maintain a constant speed (for a few seconds) before we ask ONE of the kids to move to the centre of the merry-go-round from the outside.

What happens?

Try it yourself if you want?

Why not do it on your office chair - spin around with your legs out and then bring your legs in really fast.

So - what happens?

You sped up didn't you?

So, let's continue with my rotational motion lesson and why not let's start with all the four kids as close to the centre of the merry-go-round as possible.

Spin it. Get it to a constant speed.

Now, one of the kids moves to the outside.... What happens?

The merry-go-round slows down.

This same effect can occur when large masses of the Earth move (particularly outward).

One thing I was wrong about was that the Earth slowed down because of the earthquakes. I didn't take into consideration that the earthquake caused massive amounts of movement towards the centre of the Earth, thus speeding up the Earth's spin, not slowing it down.

The Chilean earthquake also had similar effects.

This man here (from NASA) is one of the men who calculated the speed of the Earth after the Japanese earthquake:

Science and Technology

From NASA: NASA - NASA Details Earthquake Effects on the Earth

 

[Australis]

Clean cut case against "intelligent design" the laryngeal nerve. This example also demonstrates a link between mammals and fish.
Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe - YouTube

If you want to watch a more in-depth video on "Intelligent design" vs real science..
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design - YouTube

Ken Miller's talk on Intelligent Design at Case Western University. Ken Miller basically rips Intelligent Design apart in a 2 hour long exposé of the claims of intelligent design and the tactics that creationists employ to get it shoehorned into the American school system.

Intelligent design or irreducible complexity are NOT scientific theories. If you disagree please provide reference to published papers supporting either "theory" in a respectable peer reviewed science journal.

 

[Mark Newton]

I don't 'believe' in macroevolution, I understand it and realise it to be fact. 'Believing' is having faith where knowledge does not exist.

 

[SYNeR]

I really don't see the point in this thread. The only time I've seen the terms micro and macro evolution used is by creationists.
Macro-evolution is micro-evolution. The only real debate, as I see it, is around speciation.


http://i.imgur.com/oAnfA.jpg

im not trying to disprove anything, just saying it how it is, im not saying evolution isnt possible, just believe there had to be a alpha before the beta gamma delta. for evolution to work there still has to be a beginning.

Yes, abiogenesis - whereby chemistry becomes biology and self-replicating molecules such as DNA and its early precepts start the process of evolution by natural selection.


I have nothing to say on the subject without wasting breath, as this has all been documented and referenced by far greater people than myself (scientists) in numerous places numerous times. So, here's a web site:


TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy


An Index to Creationist Claims


or, more specifically relating to the thread topic:


CB901: No Macroevolution

For those like myself who aren't so scientifically-minded, check out John Conway's 'The Game of Life'.. It illustrates how self-replicating 'entities' within some system (or set of physics) evolve over time, how patterns form, etc..

Conway's Game of Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Surroundx]

I really don't see the point in this thread. The only time I've seen the terms micro and macro evolution used is by creationists.

'Macroevolution' is simply 'microevolution' extrapolated over long periods of time. So to the orthodox Darwinian, to accept one entails acceptance of the other. However, creationists accept that evolution can occur within a relatively fixed 'type', but that new species cannot arise (i.e. speciation). That is why I made the dichotomy, even though it is basically never made by anybody other than those who disagree that evolution can create new species. If I had of simply asked whether people believe in evolution then we would have had a lot of 'microevolution but not macroevolution' responses, so I thought I'd pre-empt them.

 

[SYNeR]

There is no dichotomy whatsoever.

It's a basic process of induction that small changes over larger periods of time will result in large changes.

For a creationist, it's kind of like denying ageing & death whilst acknowledging ageing on a smaller timeframe..
Eternal youth!

Really, the idea of Platonic "forms" (which is really all creationists are spouting/recycling) has been rejected by anyone sane across all areas
of life and disciplines for centuries now.

The irony is that the only "forms" that exist eternally are the same rehashed creationist arguments and false dichotomies that reappear time & time again.

 

[Surroundx]

There is no dichotomy whatsoever.

What I meant was distinction, sorry.

Earlier you wrote:

"The only time I've seen the terms micro and macro evolution used is by creationists."

Just perusing John Endler's Natural Selection in the Wild (1986) and found that he mentions both on pp. 7 when discussing the definition of 'evolution' population geneticists use.

 

[junglepython2]

One for austy...

 

[moosenoose]

The less I know about things, the better

 

[Skeptic]

Well, there really is no such thing as micro vs macro evolution in the context you put it in. Micro and macro evolution are terms invented by the proponents of intelligent design to confuse the subject. The only difference between the two is time. And anyway, reality doesn't give a **** about your beliefs.

 

[Surroundx]

Well, there really is no such thing as micro vs macro evolution in the context you put it in. The only difference between the two is time.

Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolution over time. To any orthodox Darwinian, to accept one but not the other is preposterous. However, as many people (creationists in the general sense) do not accept that evolution can produce new species (speciation), but do believe that evolution can occur within a relatively fixed "type", I decided to make the distinction to prevent the inevitable complications which naturally arise during discussions on evolution.

Micro and macro evolution are terms invented by the proponents of intelligent design to confuse the subject.

Regarding "micro-" and "macroevolution" being terms invented by proponents of the "intelligent design" movement, as far as I can tell the two terms pre-date the official inauguration of the movement by at least several years. According to (Scott, 2005: 116) the movements origin can be pinpointed as the publication of The Mystery of Life's Origin (Thaxton et. al. 1984). References to both micro- and macroevolution date back to at least 1980 (Roger Lewin cited in Scott, 2005: 185), and who knows how much earlier again.

References:

Scott, Eugenie C. (2005). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, paperback edition. London, England and Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.

Thaxton, Charles B., Bradley, Walter L. and Olsen, Roger L. (1984). The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. New York: Philosophical Library.

 

[Skeptic]

Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolution over time. To any orthodox Darwinian, to accept one but not the other is preposterous. However, as many people (creationists in the general sense) do not accept that evolution can produce new species (speciation), but do believe that evolution can occur within a relatively fixed "type", I decided to make the distinction to prevent the inevitable complications which naturally arise during discussions on evolution.



Regarding "micro-" and "macroevolution" being terms invented by proponents of the "intelligent design" movement, as far as I can tell the two terms pre-date the official inauguration of the movement by at least several years. According to (Scott, 2005: 116) the movements origin can be pinpointed as the publication of The Mystery of Life's Origin (Thaxton et. al. 1984). References to both micro- and macroevolution date back to at least 1980 (Roger Lewin cited in Scott, 2005: 185), and who knows how much earlier again.

References:

Scott, Eugenie C. (2005). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, paperback edition. London, England and Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.

Thaxton, Charles B., Bradley, Walter L. and Olsen, Roger L. (1984). The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. New York: Philosophical Library.

Well we seem to agree that the only difference between the two is time. However, when you say that any orthodox Darwinian must accept both, I say that any orthodox Darwinian sees the terms as a false dichotomy. And you are right in correcting me that proponents of intelligent design didn't actually invent the terms micro and macro evolution.

The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution ​

Variabilität und Variation. However, modern day proponents of I.D have re-invented the terms to present their idea's as scientific and credible when they are not. Also, even though you say the I.D movement started in 1984, this was only when they dumped the term creationism and took on the new title I.D in an attempt to sneak back into the education system.

As for my last remark, "Reality doesn't give a **** about your beliefs". That's just a saying. I wasn't referring to your beliefs.

BTW, I'm a big fan of Eugenie Scott and the NCSE and think without them, education in the U.S would be in a sorrier state.

 

[jeffa_8]

There is enough scientific material to totally prove Evolution not just microevolution. If stuff did not evolve then we wouldnt have the animals we have today after the meteor hit and wiped out 90% of the planet. They can prove certain types of marine life are unchanged in 135 million years and crocs have been around for millenia but mammals as we know are only in the last million years give or take a week. Humans are the best example of micro evolution, we get faster taller stronger every generation or so this is evolving and as its on a tiny basis it is microevolution. Take legless lizards, did they evolve without legs abd are still growing them threw evolution or did they have them and are losing them thru evolution, we wont know for another ten thousand years or do we. Even the most religious of folk must believe in some evolution.

Why would we be evolving and becoming faster, taller and stronger when we use more machinery and technology now than ever? It contradicts what people are saying in that there needs to be a necesity for evolution. I dont believe that a species can completely change to another. One evolutionary scientist (cant remember names) was doing work with wild cabbages and showing all the different types of cabbages he "evolved" from the one species. He ended up with all these different types such as red cabbage broccoli etc. In the end they were all still cabbages. Its the same with dogs they are bred for their traits buts the species doesn't change.

 

[Skeptic]

I dont believe that a species can completely change to another. One evolutionary scientist (cant remember names) was doing work with wild cabbages and showing all the different types of cabbages he "evolved" from the one species. He ended up with all these different types such as red cabbage broccoli etc. In the end they were all still cabbages.

One experiment done over the career of one scientist doesn't disprove evolution. Give it a few million years and it won't be the same species. You've got to remember that evolution has been playing out since the dawn of life some 4 billion years ago. A time frame that's hard for a human to contemplate.

 

[Surroundx]

One evolutionary scientist (cant remember names) was doing work with wild cabbages and showing all the different types of cabbages he "evolved" from the one species. He ended up with all these different types such as red cabbage broccoli etc. In the end they were all still cabbages. Its the same with dogs they are bred for their traits buts the species doesn't change.

Any given species cannot just turn into a new species, even given thousands of years or even hundreds of thousands of years (or more again). Phenotypic plasticity is only finite for any given organism, and especially limited for some species depending upon their morphology and physiology. Look up "developmental constraint" on Google.

Well we seem to agree that the only difference between the two is time.

The only difference between the two is that one is the accumulation of the other over time. So I wouldn't say that the difference is time. The difference is the number of genetic changes.

However, when you say that any orthodox Darwinian must accept both, I say that any orthodox Darwinian sees the terms as a false dichotomy.

I didn't actually say that any orthodox Darwinian must accept both. I made what I think is a slightly lesser claim that, on the practical level, it is a preposterous notion to accept one but not the other in the eyes of an orthodox Darwinian. I don't know if that makes any difference, but I was allowing for the fact that somebody would object if I made such a seemingly overconfident statement. Perhaps some orthodox Darwinists do not believe it necessary to accept both, though obviously they themselves do accept the reality of both.

And you are right in correcting me that proponents of intelligent design didn't actually invent the terms micro and macro evolution.

The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution ​

Variabilität und Variation.

However, modern day proponents of I.D have re-invented the terms to present their idea's as scientific and credible when they are not.​

​

I wasn't aware that the terms had such vintage as 1927, same year Parliament House, Canberra, opened. Thanks for the consciousness-raising

Also, even though you say the I.D movement started in 1984, this was only when they dumped the term creationism and took on the new title I.D in an attempt to sneak back into the education system.

Eugenie Scott is the one who states that the movement began in 1984. I was simply quoting her on it, as somewhat of an authority figure. Though of course authorities can be wrong, and science is by its very nature provisional.

As for my last remark, "Reality doesn't give a **** about your beliefs". That's just a saying. I wasn't referring to your beliefs.

I though as much, which is why I didn't not mention it in my reply

BTW, I'm a big fan of Eugenie Scott and the NCSE and think without them, education in the U.S would be in a sorrier state.

Amen to that!