Simply because they are identical.
Consider an analogy:
Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.
A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.
For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.
Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.
When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?
If you accept microevolution
Moderator: Moderators
- jamesmorlock
- Scholar
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 4:26 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
If you accept microevolution
Post #1"I can call spirits from the vastie Deepe."
"Why so can I, or so can any man: But will they come, when you doe call for them?"
--Henry IV
"You’re about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican."
--Rimmer, Red Dwarf
"Bender is great."
--Bender
"Why so can I, or so can any man: But will they come, when you doe call for them?"
--Henry IV
"You’re about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican."
--Rimmer, Red Dwarf
"Bender is great."
--Bender
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #341But that could just be the product of self delusion and confirmation bias.
Oh...... wait......
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- John Bauer
- Apprentice
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
- Has thanked: 122 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #342First, when it comes to scientific theories, evolution is truly the only game in town. There are other theories or ideas, of course, but they are not scientific. Creationism, for example, is a theological idea rooted in Scripture; because it is neither falsifiable nor even testable, it is not scientific. But creationists shouldn't want it to be scientific, for creationism has a higher commitment.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:03 pm
[Evolution] is about the necessity of unbelievers to explain the origins of species without invoking God—because if you negate God's existence, evolution is the only game in town.
Second, unbelievers are not the only ones who understand and accept evolution—so do most of the 2.5 billion Christians in the world. None of them are driven to explain the origin of species apart from God, much less negate his existence. In other words, your criticism of evolution ignores the vast majority of those who accept it.
And what is that beef, exactly?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:06 pm I [have a] beef with the concept of theistic evolution—although this is more of an "in house" debate between believers [...]
- John Bauer
- Apprentice
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
- Has thanked: 122 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #343Should we teach the heliocentric theory as fact in public schools?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:20 pm
Most certainly evolution should not be taught as fact in public schools. As theory, okay, but not as fact. [...]
A fact is that which is the case (true, exists, happened), attested by direct observation, as opposed to inference or conjecture.
"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover (May 1981), pp. 34–37. Emphasis mine.
The fact that life evolves is pretty much impossible to deny—from intraspecific variation in a species population (microevolution) to interspecific variation through allopatric or sympatric speciation events (macroevolution)—but there is plenty of latitude when it comes to explaining how and to what extent it does so. "Explaining" is precisely the role of a scientific theory. All sides of the origins debate must contend with the same massive and ever growing body of evidence, the data or facts, for life's evolution, proposing empirical and testable theories to explain them in a self-consistent model that corresponds to the world we observe around us. And one side of this debate is doing that quite capably.
Furthermore, it can sometimes happen that a theory becomes regarded as a fact. The evidence supporting a theory can become so extensive and comprehensive [1] that we end up reaching a point where rival theories are rendered basically implausible by an insurmountable burden of proof. So those promoting rival Theory B would be confronted with the arduous task of showing that the relevant facts have never really supported the current Theory A after all, and also that rival Theory B better and more competently explains that evidence—and more. For example, there was a time in our history when a heliocentric theory was proposed to explain the relevant facts we could observe of our solar system. It was, and still is, "just a theory." But now, after five hundred years of amassing ever more evidence, including the countless proven predictions based on that theory and space-borne instrument data consistent with it, this theory has become regarded as essentially a fact. I should think that any sufficiently educated person would admit, "It is a fact that the planets orbit the sun." And rival theories—if there are any—are faced with an insurmountable burden of proof.
All knowledge is "unsure of itself." No item of knowledge is, or even can be, certain—especially if the world is a place of all-pervasive illusion.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:22 pm
What is the use of "knowledge" that is unsure of itself? [...] Knowledge is certain.
-----
Footnotes:
[1] The evidence supporting a theory is enormously compelling when it was something previously unknown but predicted by the theory and subsequently discovered.
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #344Wholeheartedly disagree! Knowledge to be knowledge must be infallible. Otherwise it is at best just a useful fiction.John Bauer wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:15 am
All knowledge is "unsure of itself." No item of knowledge is, or even can be, certain—especially if the world is a place of all-pervasive illusion.
Knowledge is possible even in our setting. We may be drowning in an ocean of lies, but a life-preserver of truth can nonetheless break through the chaos, and we CAN recognize it as such the moment we hold onto it. Things come together, cohere, and we see reality as it is. Though I'll admit the 'how' of this I do not yet know how to articulate.
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #345We should teach in the sense that: this is the case according to the model that our senses interpret. We should teach our current "science" in that fashion. We shouldn't absolutely claim this is the way it is. We should simply say "this is according to how we interpret our instruments."John Bauer wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:15 amShould we teach the heliocentric theory as fact in public schools?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:20 pm
Most certainly evolution should not be taught as fact in public schools. As theory, okay, but not as fact. [...]
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #346Ultimately, I think we are at a stalemate. IF we take experiences to be all equal. I think that some experiences are qualitatively in another league of their own. But in order to know that you have to experience them firsthand. If you do not experience them firsthand, but only read about them, or think about them, you aren't given the full deal; you won't be convinced.Tcg wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:36 pmSo you claim that your experience is perfectly free of illusion and all you can provide as evidence that this is true is that it is your experience?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:50 amExperience.Tcg wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:28 pmHow do you know that the bolded unsupported assertion is not also an illusion?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:41 am
In my worldview, illusion is all-pervasive, but it is not total. It is controlled by God. God is the source of truth and the dispeller of illusion. If we submit to him, our illusion is lessened.
Tcg
I have experienced the reality that god/gods don't exist. It looks like we are now at a stalemate unless you can provide some verifiable evidence that your experience outweighs mine. What have you that qulifies?
Tcg
I don't know how to argue at this point so I believe we are indeed at a stalemate. I cannot prove to you that an experience is an indicator of an obvious truth, anymore than you can prove to a solipsist that his experience of another person is an obvious truth. That is YOUR experience, not his. I personally know the truth, but I can't force it on anyone. I can only hopefully plant a seed of curiosity and hope it grows in someone's brain.
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #347I do not believe evolution is a viable scientific theory, for reasons previously mentioned.John Bauer wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:06 am
First, when it comes to scientific theories, evolution is truly the only game in town.
Well, I doubt a "vast majority" of Christians accept the ToE..second, evolution is much easier to except (imo), if there was a divine hand behind it. Certainly, a reptile can evolve into a bird if God ordained it to be the case.John Bauer wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:06 am Second, unbelievers are not the only ones who understand and accept evolution—so do most of the 2.5 billion Christians in the world. None of them are driven to explain the origin of species apart from God, much less negate his existence. In other words, your criticism of evolution ignores the vast majority of those who accept it.
The question then becomes; did God ordain it to be the case. I say no.
The beef is the fact that I don't believe that God created species the way that theistic evolutionists believe. If this is being taught in Churches (which I doubt), then it is a false teaching...and I am against false doctrine.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #348Then consider this 2018 poll.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:55 pm
Well, I doubt a "vast majority" of Christians accept the ToE..second, evolution is much easier to except (imo), if there was a divine hand behind it. Certainly, a reptile can evolve into a bird if God ordained it to be the case.
At the very best, only 38% who identified as white evangelical Protestants bought into creationism, while a huge majority of other Christians think evolution is the reason for the diversity of life on the planet.
Considering that Christians make up 65% of the US population, this comes down to 4.57 times as many us Christians believe in evolution as those believing in creationism. OR creationists make up only 21.88 % of the Christian population while evolutionists make up 78.2 %, which I would say qualifies as the "vast" majority.
Creationism just ain't selling.
.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #349The same is true of my experience. If you haven't experienced my experiences firsthand, you can't possibly evaluate them properly. You aren't convinced by my experiences and I'm not convinced by yours. This is why verifiable evidence is what we should seek.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:46 pmUltimately, I think we are at a stalemate. IF we take experiences to be all equal. I think that some experiences are qualitatively in another league of their own. But in order to know that you have to experience them firsthand. If you do not experience them firsthand, but only read about them, or think about them, you aren't given the full deal; you won't be convinced.Tcg wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:36 pmSo you claim that your experience is perfectly free of illusion and all you can provide as evidence that this is true is that it is your experience?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:50 amExperience.Tcg wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:28 pmHow do you know that the bolded unsupported assertion is not also an illusion?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:41 am
In my worldview, illusion is all-pervasive, but it is not total. It is controlled by God. God is the source of truth and the dispeller of illusion. If we submit to him, our illusion is lessened.
Tcg
I have experienced the reality that god/gods don't exist. It looks like we are now at a stalemate unless you can provide some verifiable evidence that your experience outweighs mine. What have you that qulifies?
Tcg
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- John Bauer
- Apprentice
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
- Has thanked: 122 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #350That's a very carefully worded sentence which doesn't appear to answer my question. Again, after five hundred years of meticulous data collection, observation, and testing, the heliocentric theory has become regarded as essentially a fact, such that any sufficiently educated person is right to admit that it is. This is just one example of a theory so thoroughly tested and supported that it's properly regarded as a fact (i.e. something that is actually the case).Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:35 pm
We should teach in the sense that: this is the case according to the model that our senses interpret. We should teach our current "science" in that fashion. We shouldn't absolutely claim this is the way it is. We should simply say "this is according to how we interpret our instruments."