Do you believe in macroevolution?

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Surroundx, Feb 18, 2012.

?
  1. Yes

    94 vote(s)
    82.5%
  2. No

    18 vote(s)
    15.8%
  3. I'm not sure

    2 vote(s)
    1.8%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Crystal..Discus

    Crystal..Discus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Brisbane
    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.
     
  2. Just_Plain_Nuts

    Just_Plain_Nuts Very Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    this sounds a bit far fetched??? More info and PROOF...as you call it...

    Totally agree with you that science and religion are not mutually exclusive...
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2012
  3. slim6y

    slim6y Almost Legendary

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,285
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    New Zealand
    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
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2012
  4. Australis

    Australis Almost Legendary

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,468
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Central Coast NSW
    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
    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.
     
  5. Mark Newton

    Mark Newton Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    I don't 'believe' in macroevolution, I understand it and realise it to be fact. 'Believing' is having faith where knowledge does not exist.
     
  6. SYNeR

    SYNeR Suspended Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    1
    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



    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
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2012
  7. Surroundx

    Surroundx Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Two Rocks, Western Australia, Australia
    '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.
     
  8. SYNeR

    SYNeR Suspended Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2012
  9. Surroundx

    Surroundx Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Two Rocks, Western Australia, Australia
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2012
  10. One for austy...
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 30, 2012
  11. moosenoose

    moosenoose Legendary

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2003
    Messages:
    11,003
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    The less I know about things, the better :D
     
  12. Skeptic

    Skeptic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Macquarie
    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. :)
     
  13. Surroundx

    Surroundx Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Two Rocks, Western Australia, Australia
    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.
     
  14. Skeptic

    Skeptic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Macquarie
    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.
     
  15. jeffa_8

    jeffa_8 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NSW
    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.
     
  16. Skeptic

    Skeptic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Macquarie
    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. :)
     
  17. Surroundx

    Surroundx Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Two Rocks, Western Australia, Australia
    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

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

    Amen to that!
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page