Why Is Only "Micro Evolution" Acceptable?

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The true elites of this country have far more money than the Christians do."

and the next thing will be the illuminati. Mempho has no interest in evidence, just conspiracy theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why am I boxed into believing in the Illuminati just because I realize that the majority of the megawealth in this country doesn't subscribe to Christian doctrine?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Realize" is a pretty hilarious word choice. Sounds so much more legitimate than "believe for no reason."

You are probably right, FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. It's a poor word choice. I should have stated it differently since I haven't actually gone through and verified it for myself. It's a generalization to say such a thing. Although my generalization is likely to be correct, I can't really represent it as a fact.

[Matt R.]

vhawk,
I don't think a single mutation could cause a speciation event. Could you expand on your idea a little bit?

If we split population X into populations Y and Z, X = Y = Z at time zero as far as our definition of species is concerned. If a member of population Z receives a mutation that alters its reproductively capability with respect to population Y, then since X = Y = Z it must alter its capability with it own population Z as well. Thus it would be completely infertile (if by altering reproductive capability we mean cant breed with a certain population). If the mutation did NOT cause it to be completely infertile with respect to population Z, then it would not be completely infertile with respect to Y either since they are the same species aside from this one mutation. So we haven't caused a speciation event.

Over time though, and given enough mutations, populations Y and Z will begin to differ in appreciable ways. This is from an accumulation of mutations. When the last member of Y and Z that is reproductively viable with both Y and Z dies or becomes infertile, then we have a new species.

[Mempho]

FYI...

I'll think everyone here will find this article released today very interesting. It's about a documentary film with Ben Stein on the evolution-creation debate:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57840

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
FYI...

I'll think everyone here will find this article released today very interesting. It's about a documentary film with Ben Stein on the evolution-creation debate:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57840

[/ QUOTE ]
Gee whiz, if you're thinking this "article" reads like a press release, you are correct (PDF). Color me surprised.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI...

I'll think everyone here will find this article released today very interesting. It's about a documentary film with Ben Stein on the evolution-creation debate:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57840

[/ QUOTE ]
Gee whiz, if you're thinking this "article" reads like a press release, you are correct (PDF). Color me surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll add this as well.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI...

I'll think everyone here will find this article released today very interesting. It's about a documentary film with Ben Stein on the evolution-creation debate:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57840

[/ QUOTE ]
Gee whiz, if you're thinking this "article" reads like a press release, you are correct (PDF). Color me surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have people here that can discern things for themselves. They understand bias without me having to explain it to them like children every single time.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI...

I'll think everyone here will find this article released today very interesting. It's about a documentary film with Ben Stein on the evolution-creation debate:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57840

[/ QUOTE ]
Gee whiz, if you're thinking this "article" reads like a press release, you are correct (PDF). Color me surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have people here that can discern things for themselves. They understand bias without me having to explain it to them like children every single time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Worst mea culpa of all time?

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI...

I'll think everyone here will find this article released today very interesting. It's about a documentary film with Ben Stein on the evolution-creation debate:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57840

[/ QUOTE ]
Gee whiz, if you're thinking this "article" reads like a press release, you are correct (PDF). Color me surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll add this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. For some reason this link doesn't work anymore, at least not without signing up.

Basically, the producers of this "documentary" lied to the scientists they interviewed about the type of program this was.

Actually, I found another link written by one of the scientists interviewed. This is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/...na_be_a_m.html

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the "true" folks have far more money. Sorry to disturb your persecution complex.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would disagree. The true elites of this country have far more money than the Christians do. Lots more. I don't consider it persecution, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say the "true elites" are the politicians (virtually all Christian), and many corporate executives are indeed Christian. It sounds like you're talking about Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Atheists are over-represented among the wealthiest people. Particularly among self-made billionaires. This hardly seems indicative of a conspiracy to me. Also, there are many Christians (and other theists) among the world's richest people. Theists actually make up the majority, based on a quick scan.

The most prominent are the Waltons, and I don't think they support your point. Look at how the Waltons spend their money versus how Gates and Buffet spend theirs.

The people trying to manipulate policy in this country are almost always Christian.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk,
His definition of microevolution was

[ QUOTE ]
2) The accepted meaning of 'microevolution' is where a change in an animal's genetic makeup is made, but where that change does not affect what species said animal can mate with.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I think it's wrong is because microevolution is not a "change in an animal's genetic makeup". It's a change in allele frequencies over an entire population.

Similarly, for macro:

[ QUOTE ]
3) The accepted meaning of 'macroevolution' is where a change in an animal's genetic makeup is made, but where that change does affect what species said animal can mate with.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is really misleading, because if a SINGLE genetic mutation effected the species an animal can mate with, it would probably lead them to being completely infertile (and a single mutation certainly wouldn't create a whole new species). It takes a lot of mutations, adding up over generations, with no gene flow between populations, for a species to diverge.

I mean, the definitions were correct in a rough way (kinda sorta) in that he included speciation in his definition of macro. But, when you think in terms of "single mutations" being macroevolution it becomes really misleading. For one, I think it leads one to believe macroevolution (and by extension, speciation) is some magical event beyond microevolution that leads to a new species popping up all of a sudden. This leads some people to think that macroevolution is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am far from a biologist. I have no idea what 'change in allele frequencies' means. Seriously. I was trying to make sense of the position of people that accept micro and not macroevolution, and in trying to do so, I was attempting to set some framework within which to discuss the issue.

I have come to the conclusion that the question has been answered by a great post. below.