Why Is Only "Micro Evolution" Acceptable?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I honestly can't tell whether you are leveling. For your sake, I hope you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if everyone else believes it, it must be true? Galileo might beg to differ.

For my sake, I decided not to be spoon-fed and tried to investigate both sides of the story. I didn't say evolution was false but I did say that it is likely that it is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone does not believe it.

This has nothing to do with its veracity.

Make more intelligent posts. We know you are a special flower and you are a unique snowflake and you don't "swallow" what "the man" is trying to feed you, but if you've got legitimate, thought-out objections make them.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So macroevolution is just microevolution times X, where X is defined as "whatever number is big enough

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. Macroevolution deals with evolution beyond individual species. We can take microevolution times X for X as big as we want, and it isn't sufficient to be in the domain of macroevolution (although it is necessary). The other definining criteria is that speciation has to occur. This is because macroevolution deals with topics like diversity of species (which, of course, speciation is necessary for). I think there may be other ways that people use the term macroevolution, but those seem to be confusing and incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
Macro is more than micro, sure, ok, but how much more, and what is the fundamental difference between the two that leads to the idea that one is possible/has happened and the other hasn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no fundamental difference between the two. I think the idea that one is impossible comes from a misunderstanding of evolution (albeit an extremely subtle misunderstanding of how speciation occurs). If we assume that microevolution occurs in a population, and that reproductive viability is dependent upon heritable characteristics (genes), then speciation is inevitable. Microevolution leads to macroevolution.

To easily see this, just split a population up into two groups. If there is no gene flow present between the two groups, then due to genetic drift they will diverge genetically over time (this process is random, or at least partly random). If we acknowledge that there are genes responsible for reproductive success, then these genes will diverge over time as well. Since there is no selective pressure for population 1 to be reproductively viable with population 2, over time they will no longer be reproductively viable with each other. This is simply due to random mutations in the genome, which we already acknowledged occurs (microevolution). These simple changes in allele frequency lead population 1 to differ from population 2, and the genes responsible for reproduction diverge via the same simple mechanism.

Of course once there are no remaining members that can interbreed, then over thousands and thousands of generations they continue to diverge (no gene flow). Give it long enough, and the two species look nothing alike. Now just repeat this process over and over again for millions of years, and you can see why we have so many species that look so vastly different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we agree on pretty much all of this, which again makes me wonder why you objected to the numbered points 2) and 3) above. Aren't you essentially agreeing that the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is that macro involves speciation events? That was what I offered as the only non-arbitrary division between the two, and it seemed to be what hitch was trying to say, but then it seemed like you disagreed with that for some reason.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I honestly can't tell whether you are leveling. For your sake, I hope you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if everyone else believes it, it must be true? Galileo might beg to differ.

For my sake, I decided not to be spoon-fed and tried to investigate both sides of the story. I didn't say evolution was false but I did say that it is likely that it is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone does not believe it.

This has nothing to do with its veracity.

Make more intelligent posts. We know you are a special flower and you are a unique snowflake and you don't "swallow" what "the man" is trying to feed you, but if you've got legitimate, thought-out objections make them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh and while it may seem completely irrelevant, and theoretically it is irrelevant, mind telling us if you are a Christian or not? It will help me out a lot, and I assure you I will not use it to summarily dismiss any of your arguments. I'll still do my best to respond to them, I will just know better what tack to try.

[CORed]

Religious people (those who insist on a strictly literal interpretation of their creation stories anyway) don't like evolution because it doesn't agree with those creation stories. However, what they call micro-evolution is an observable fact. Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, insects develop resistance to pesticides, may organisms develop resistance to diseases, on a time scale that is observable within a human lifetime. Therefore, asserting that "micro-evolution" doesn't happen is a lot like asserting that the sun rises in the west, so creationists and other religious fundamentalists invent imaginary barriers to "macro-evolution", which, in general, happens over a large enough time scale that it is possible to deny it without looking like a complete idiot.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if everyone else believes it, it must be true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually read this thread? It is full of knowledgeable people making careful distinctions. Where is the blind following? Can you point to an example in this thread? And then tell us how critical you are in your reading of the Bible.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I honestly can't tell whether you are leveling. For your sake, I hope you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if everyone else believes it, it must be true? Galileo might beg to differ.



[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously not. There is something called "evidence," which even non-experts can understand in the case of evolutionary theory. Not to mention the consensus among the experts that the evidence conclusively supports evolution.

And that you invoked Galileo in your non-sequitur still gives me faint hope you are leveling us.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Religious people (those who insist on a strictly literal interpretation of their creation stories anyway) don't like evolution because it doesn't agree with those creation stories. However, what they call micro-evolution is an observable fact. Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, insects develop resistance to pesticides, may organisms develop resistance to diseases, on a time scale that is observable within a human lifetime. Therefore, asserting that "micro-evolution" doesn't happen is a lot like asserting that the sun rises in the west, so creationists and other religious fundamentalists invent imaginary barriers to "macro-evolution", which, in general, happens over a large enough time scale that it is possible to deny it without looking like a complete idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

These very same people would have been MORE than happy to assert that microevolution didn't happen either if there was anything less than "pound you into the ground" levels of evidence to support it. Actually, even that wouldn't have mattered. I think the key is that it has to be evidence that even the most novice person can easily see for themselves without having to think or learn about anything. As long as they can cast aspersions and make pleas of incredulity, they'll stand their ground.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I honestly can't tell whether you are leveling. For your sake, I hope you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if everyone else believes it, it must be true? Galileo might beg to differ.

For my sake, I decided not to be spoon-fed and tried to investigate both sides of the story. I didn't say evolution was false but I did say that it is likely that it is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone does not believe it.

This has nothing to do with its veracity.

Make more intelligent posts. We know you are a special flower and you are a unique snowflake and you don't "swallow" what "the man" is trying to feed you, but if you've got legitimate, thought-out objections make them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh and while it may seem completely irrelevant, and theoretically it is irrelevant, mind telling us if you are a Christian or not? It will help me out a lot, and I assure you I will not use it to summarily dismiss any of your arguments. I'll still do my best to respond to them, I will just know better what tack to try.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm a Christian. I don't mind saying that. Here's my real beef....everything about the creation in science is just a theory. Evolution, in particular, has a lot of issues that keep me from believing it as a fact. Mind you, I'm not outright refuting it...I'm just saying that it is likely a myth built on shoddy evidence.

I think the sedimentary rock layer stratification issues are a major problem with evolution. Further, scientists always ignore the evidence of water in the rock layers. This tells me (and you know why) that the evidence that the scientific community is putting out is likely biased.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I honestly can't tell whether you are leveling. For your sake, I hope you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if everyone else believes it, it must be true? Galileo might beg to differ.

For my sake, I decided not to be spoon-fed and tried to investigate both sides of the story. I didn't say evolution was false but I did say that it is likely that it is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone does not believe it.

This has nothing to do with its veracity.

Make more intelligent posts. We know you are a special flower and you are a unique snowflake and you don't "swallow" what "the man" is trying to feed you, but if you've got legitimate, thought-out objections make them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh and while it may seem completely irrelevant, and theoretically it is irrelevant, mind telling us if you are a Christian or not? It will help me out a lot, and I assure you I will not use it to summarily dismiss any of your arguments. I'll still do my best to respond to them, I will just know better what tack to try.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm a Christian. I don't mind saying that. Here's my real beef....everything about the creation in science is just a theory. Evolution, in particular, has a lot of issues that keep me from believing it as a fact. Mind you, I'm not outright refuting it...I'm just saying that it is likely a myth built on shoddy evidence.

I think the sedimentary rock layer stratification issues are a major problem with evolution. Further, scientists always ignore the evidence of water in the rock layers. This tells me (and you know why) that the evidence that the scientific community is putting out is likely biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to be hostile to your terminology, but its nothing personal. It is EXTREMELY important, in debates such as this, that we get definitions clear up front.

What does "is just a theory" mean to you?

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]


What does "is just a theory" mean to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand where you're going. I'm not going down a "the devil put the bones there to confuse us" road. I'm not trying to refute evolution based on the fact that it can't "be observed" either.

It is simply that I don't agree with the evidentiary basis for evolution.