|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Zuca
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: Micro and Macro evolution |
 |
|
Hmmm, I had a question pop up in my mind and I didn't have the ways to
answer it myself, its probably mostly a question on opinions though, so
here goes:
If Macro evolution is a change that really makes a creature different in
some aspect (evolutions say birds to dogs, fish to whatever bullshit)
wouldn't bacteria and fungi be a perfect show of macro evolution?
They are small but can through a small change change their behavior
tremendously, from suddenly being able to accept a completely different
food source from the one they were normally used to, to being able to
effectively withstand chemicals that would normally kill them, but they
adapted and survived..
How is this not macro evolution, its a mayor change in their workings,
something you cant really deny..
Or does macro and micro evolution really just depend on the size of the
creature... If in the future a squirrel, through tests gain a second
tail, is that then micro evolution because the squirrel is really small
and people wanted to see an elephant change into a horse :/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
RobinGoodfellow
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Micro and Macro evolution |
|
|
On May 31, 2:36 am, Zuca <Z...@utopiandragons.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Hmmm, I had a question pop up in my mind and I didn't have the ways to
answer it myself, its probably mostly a question on opinions though, so
here goes:
If Macro evolution is a change that really makes a creature different in
some aspect (evolutions say birds to dogs, fish to whatever bullshit)
wouldn't bacteria and fungi be a perfect show of macro evolution?
They are small but can through a small change change their behavior
tremendously, from suddenly being able to accept a completely different
food source from the one they were normally used to, to being able to
effectively withstand chemicals that would normally kill them, but they
adapted and survived..
How is this not macro evolution, its a mayor change in their workings,
something you cant really deny..
Or does macro and micro evolution really just depend on the size of the
creature... If in the future a squirrel, through tests gain a second
tail, is that then micro evolution because the squirrel is really small
and people wanted to see an elephant change into a horse :/
|
You have to remember that to a creationist, "microevolution" means
"the amount of evolution I am willing to accept", whereas
"macroevolution" means "evolution that doesn't happen". That said,
among prominent YECs these days, "microevolution" means "evolution
within a kind". "Kind" being a term that appears in the bible, and
therefore ineffable and requiring no definition. "Kinds" must only
satisfy two conditions: 1) they must be sufficienty broad, and contain
enough "genetic information" that the millions of animal species alive
today must all have been descended from one of the few thousand animal
couples Noah was able to cram into the Ark, and all the modern plant
species descended from the few floating mats of vegetation that
somehow survived the flood for a year, and 2) man-"kind" is a kind all
of its own, completely distinct from all other hominids ever found,
and protected by the uncrossable GeneGuard (TM) genetic barrier ever
being related to another species via common descent.
In case you have still managed to hold on to a shred of your sanity
and are wondering about the concept of "genetic information", it is
simply a wondrous, magical force that has nothing to do with either
genes or information, but merely allows a few thousand species to
diversify into millions at rates that would make an evolutionary
biologist's head spin, all the while keeping the 99% identical man and
chimp safely in their own kind categories. And each and every
mutation decreases it, even if the mutation completely reverses
another one that happened previously. Probably has something to do
with the Fall, or maybe the Spring.
Anyhow, I hope this clarifies once and for all the distinction between
"micro" and "macro" evolution as the YEC sees it. But whatever
definition you go with, always remember - macroevolution never
happens, because only microevolution can. Thus endeth the lesson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lorentz
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: Re: Micro and Macro evolution |
|
|
| Quote: |
i'm a chemist. democritus used the term 'atom' in ancient greece, but
i don't know who used it in its contemporary sense.
I think that Dalton usually gets the credit for using the word |
"atom" in the modern sense. The word certainly underwent a sea change
when radioactivity was discovered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Wilkins
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:48 am Post subject: Re: Micro and Macro evolution |
|
|
Lorentz <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
i'm a chemist. democritus used the term 'atom' in ancient greece, but
i don't know who used it in its contemporary sense.
I think that Dalton usually gets the credit for using the word
"atom" in the modern sense. The word certainly underwent a sea change
when radioactivity was discovered.
|
Not least because now the "indivisible" (atomos) was now divisible...
On UC's philosophy this means that what physicists talk about aren't
atoms, and what ordinary folk mean by atom isn't what the physicists
mean...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
The Enigmatic One
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Micro and Macro evolution |
|
|
In article <f3lvb9$8mq$1@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Zuca@utopiandragons.com
says...
| Quote: |
How is this not macro evolution, its a mayor change in their workings,
something you cant really deny..
|
Erm, but they're still bacteria.
You don't see bacteria changing into flying monkeys, do you? Therefore,
evolution must be false.
Or something like that.
-Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
The Enigmatic One
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Micro and Macro evolution |
|
|
In article <1180617668.482230.53060@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
sawireless2000@yahoo.com says...
| Quote: |
On May 31, 9:24 am, RobinGoodfellow <lmeyer...@gmail.com> wrote:
You have to remember that to a creationist, "microevolution" means
"the amount of evolution I am willing to accept", whereas
You do ofcourse no that the word MicroEvolution was coined (it seems
for now) in 1909 by Greenleaf in an article in the Botanical Gazette
and all he meant by it was the the "changes" that resulted in an egg
turning into an "individual" which he termend a "mystery".
Microevolution defined as 'changes in allele frequencies' is entirely
adhoc since changes in allele frequencies was a discovery. 'Evolution'
is a word with a very broad meaning and if individuals who use it as a
technical jargon term don't reference the author and what concept he
meant to convey then academic fraud is commited.
|
Wow.
You're amazingly fucking stupid.
-Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
The Enigmatic One
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Micro and Macro evolution |
|
|
In article <1180623138.749393.222220@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
sawireless2000@yahoo.com says...
| Quote: |
On May 31, 4:37 pm, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Every single creature is different in some aspect. The difference between
microevolution and macroevolution is simply one of scale, nothing more.
Published in which Journal?
|
Holy shit!
You're so fucking stupid!
-Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
The Enigmatic One
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Micro and Macro evolution |
|
|
In article <1180649866.396396.148690@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
sawireless2000@yahoo.com says...
| Quote: |
On May 31, 7:54 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
And talking about journals. Even Harvard University made a factuall
error recently.
In one of their psycology papers that talked about "Darwinian random
mutations."
But Darwin never used the word "random" in Origin of Species. I will
post the Jounal title and full quote later.
I gather that your linguistic and logical abilities are sufficiently
hampered that you don't see that "Darwinian" and "Darwin" are not the
same thing.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~wholmes/Shtulman_EvolTheory.pdf
"..Darwin explained adaptation as the selective propagation of
randomly occurring mutations within a population."
Which is a factually wrong statement Darwin did'nt "random" anything
in Origin of Species.
|
You're a real shitsucking moron!
-Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Micro and Macro evolution |
|
|
On May 31, 7:17 pm, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
| Quote: |
richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1180628326.649534.21560@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...> On May 31, 3:43 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 31, 6:21 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 31, 9:24 am, RobinGoodfellow <lmeyer...@gmail.com> wrote:> You
have to remember that to a creationist, "microevolution" means
"the amount of evolution I am willing to accept", whereas
You do ofcourse no that the word MicroEvolution was coined (it seems
for now) in 1909 by Greenleaf in an article in the Botanical Gazette
and all he meant by it was the the "changes" that resulted in an egg
turning into an "individual" which he termend a "mystery".
Microevolution defined as 'changes in allele frequencies' is entirely
adhoc since changes in allele frequencies was a discovery. 'Evolution'
is a word with a very broad meaning and if individuals who use it as a
technical jargon term don't reference the author and what concept he
meant to convey then academic fraud is commited.
Please cite the individuals who first defined for all time the words
"coined, meant, changes, jargon, technical, broad", and "academic".
If you do not than you are committing fraud *and hypocrisy.
Kermit
Only if you can establish precisely who, and on what authority
established the terms "fraud" and "hypocrisy".
Oh damn!
That means that I have to establish who, and on what authority
established the terms "only", "if", "you", "can", "establish",
"precisely", "who,", "and", "on", "what", "authority",
"established", "the", "terms" and "and".
And by the way, who, and on what authority established that we should
end sentences with a full stop (period to USAians)? and that We
Shouldn't Start Each Word With A Capital Letter? OR WRITE EVERYTHING
IN CAPITALS.
Or write only on clay tablets..
|
Perhaps we should really be asking on whose authority it was
established that concepts are only valid if they are established by
authority.
RF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
