Example of Evolutionism

[YEC]

EVOLUTIONISM MADE EASY








Did you see how the snoot evolved as the skull length gradually became shorter and flatter? Amazing, isn't it.

Now, isn't evolution simple?

[YEC]

BTW, those terms are used only by creationists. There is not real distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.

WRONG.

The following definitions come from the the book,
From So Simple A Beginning, The Book Of Evolution.
by, Philip Whitfield
who is an evolutionist.

Macro-evolution,
The evolution of new species and the large scale patterns of evolution
above species level.

Micro-evolution,
The small genetic changes that take place in populations within a single
species. These changes represent the replacement of particular genes by
similar genes already present in low numbers in the population.

I trust you stand corrected.

[juliod]

I trust you stand corrected.

I guess so.

I think they shouldn't use the terms, since it plays into creationists hands. But OTOH, evolutionary scientists aren't really interested in creationist arguments.

I'll stick with my opinion, though, that there is no difference between macro- and micro-evolution. Speciation and abiogenesis being different subjects.

DanZ

[YEC]

I trust you stand corrected.

I guess so.

I think they shouldn't use the terms, since it plays into creationists hands. But OTOH, evolutionary scientists aren't really interested in creationist arguments.

I'll stick with my opinion, though, that there is no difference between macro- and micro-evolution. Speciation and abiogenesis being different subjects.

DanZ

Some how I don't think that the formation of the dolphins echo-location system is considered as MICRO-evolution.

[juliod]

Some how I don't think that the formation of the dolphins echo-location system is considered as MICRO-evolution.

Like I said, there is no clear distinction between the terms. Macro-evolution is just an accumulation of microevolutionary changes. As far as I know, the mechanism of so-called macroevolution is the same as for microevolution. Namely, the change in genes and in frequency of alleles.

BTW, YEC, if someone could demonstrate a species-change, would you accept that evolution were possible? What I mean is an experiment whereby a population of bacterial cells (say, E. coli) being converted into yeast cells (such as S. cerevisiae). It's a standard technique of molecular biology to put genes of one species into another. It's called "transformation". It seems to me that a series of repeated transformations with large parts of the yeast genome could accomplish a change from one species (kingdom, really) to another.

I think that is entirely within the scope of current technology. But if macroevolution is impossible the experiment I propose is impossible too, right?

DanZ

[YEC]

I never said micro-evolution isn't possible.

What I said was MACRO-evolutionism such as the developement of the dolphin echo location is impossible.

[seventil]

pigeon breeding .....using micro-evolution to prove macro-evolutionism????

Quite a leap.

Not a leap at all. That's how it works.

I find it interesting that, some years ago, creationists stated flatly that microevolution was impossible, and that natural selection couldn't happen. Once they were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, creationists said, "well, yeah, that's just variation in kind. There's no such thing as speciation." Once speciation was demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, they said, "well, yeah, that's just variation in kind--you may have new species, but not new genera or phyla. There's no such thing as macroevolution" (where they use macroevolution differently than evolutionists do, but that's a separate issue).

Jose, I agree with your logic here, but I don't fully agree with the Creationist stereotype you have placed. While I agree that a good portion of Creationists in the past may have been, nicely said, "not open minded" - I think that your statement does not accurately portray a lot of Creationists now, or in the past. This could more accurately describe evolutionists in the past, and present, than Creationists, in my opinion.

Also, "speciation" is not un-Biblical. To me it makes sense that God would create something that can adapt to it's environment. It's when we start talking about man from ape that it gets to be... offensive, I guess.

[juliod]

I never said micro-evolution isn't possible.

What I said was MACRO-evolutionism such as the developement of the dolphin echo location is impossible.

OK. And so how do you react to my statement that there is no difference between these forms of evolution? Would you accept evolution if I could do the experiment I proposed?

DanZ

[Jose]

I find it interesting that, some years ago, creationists stated flatly that microevolution was impossible, and that natural selection couldn't happen. Once they were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, creationists said, "well, yeah, that's just variation in kind. There's no such thing as speciation." Once speciation was demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, they said, "well, yeah, that's just variation in kind--you may have new species, but not new genera or phyla. There's no such thing as macroevolution" (where they use macroevolution differently than evolutionists do, but that's a separate issue).

Jose, I agree with your logic here, but I don't fully agree with the Creationist stereotype you have placed. While I agree that a good portion of Creationists in the past may have been, nicely said, "not open minded" - I think that your statement does not accurately portray a lot of Creationists now, or in the past. This could more accurately describe evolutionists in the past, and present, than Creationists, in my opinion.

Also, "speciation" is not un-Biblical. To me it makes sense that God would create something that can adapt to it's environment. It's when we start talking about man from ape that it gets to be... offensive, I guess.

Sorry about the stereotype, seventil. I didn't mean to offend, just to report what I've seen over the years. It is certainly the case that the description doesn't apply to all creationists, but it has been true of some. There are, after all, many different flavors of creationists, from the flat-earthers to the theistic-evolution folks. No single description will fit everyone.

I'd be interested to know how this type of description could characterize evolutionists. If you refer to changing the definitions (or the "goalposts," if you will), that's how science works. If we find data that forces us to throw out the old model and devise a new one, we do so. That's why the theory of evolution has changed over the years, and why so many of the old quotes about its "problems" are no longer relevant. The best we can do is interpret the data we have, after all.

Despite the impression we get in school, science is not, and has never been, the listing of Facts. Sure, we like to think that some of the things we discover may really be accurate descriptions of how things really work, and sometimes scientific theories are so well supported that they probably are facts. Nonetheless, science is a process, and a very human one at that. We make observations, do experiments, gather data from the world, and then we try to explain how those observations came to be. How does the world work? Any particular explanation is only as good as the data that it tries to explain; new data may change it. That's why, in my opinion, the schools do us a disservice to present science as a bunch of facts to memorize. Then, when we graduate, and find years later that some of the facts have changed, we're outraged that scientists "lied to us." They didn't, of course. They merely said "this is how we think it works." We inferred, incorrectly, and with the help of the schools and the texbooks' simplifications, that "how we think it works" meant "this is Truth."

It's interesting that you suggest that speciation is not un-Biblical. Speciation used to be the creationist rallying cry, much as macroevolution is now. Speciation was Impossible, because God created the species as they are now, so No Change can have happened. But that's OK. It makes sense for everyone to think about their explanations for things, and as new data come to light, re-evaluate those explanations. It would obviously be silly of me to say scientists are allowed to re-evaluate their explanations, and not let others do so as well.

It has always been the apes-to-humans transition that has offended creationists the most, as you say. Personally, I think the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors makes us much more interesting than mere creation would, so I've always found it puzzling that anyone could be offended by it. Apes are wonderful creatures.

As I recall, the first reports of chimpanzees captured by Europeans actually referred to them as "men." They were short, and hairy, but men nonetheless. They were, however, very ill-behaved. They were exhibited in London or some such place. What was offensive to people at the time, and was one of the main reasons that people of the day wanted to distance themselves from them, was that chimps have sex an average of about once every 30 minutes. With bonobos it's even more often. To a Christian society that considered sex to be forbidden except for the express purpose of procreation, and referred to as "sin," this was an abomination. Imagine being related to those sinful creatures!

But, of course, we aren't chimps or bonobos, even if they are the creatures that have the most characteristics in common with us, out of all other living things, and even if our DNA is nearly identical. We're still people, whatever our origin, and we still have moral obligations to our fellows, and creative capabilities that are unique to us.

But I'm wandering off topic. You said, as YEC has said, that speciation is OK, and not un-Biblical. My question to both of you is: how does this speciation occur? This is a viewpoint that I haven't heard before, so I'd like to know as much as I can.

[YEC]

I never said micro-evolution isn't possible.

What I said was MACRO-evolutionism such as the developement of the dolphin echo location is impossible.

OK. And so how do you react to my statement that there is no difference between these forms of evolution? Would you accept evolution if I could do the experiment I proposed?

DanZ

How do I react? I say go read a text book. The text book should point out the differance.

[Jose]

How do I react? I say go read a text book. The text book should point out the differance.

They don't always... And they won't usually say that macroevolution is the magical development of an entirely new thing, like an echolocation system. A lot of 'em will, however, say that macroevolution is changes in morphology, and has been demonstrated by mutations in developmental control genes.

Certainly, when the terms were first coined, they meant something different, because developmental control genes weren't known at that time. People suggested that there might be "big mutations" that caused "big changes." That idea is too simple, and not borne out. Instead, it looks like normal mutations in normal genes do the job by the rules of microevolution. It just depends on which genes are involved.

You can find a lot of this in a textbook--at least a new one.