When asking theists about evolution they always say micro yes macro no, yes we can observe micro and we can not observe macro but both fall into the theory of evolution, and 99.9% of scientists accept it.. Isnt macro just micro plus hell of alot more time and changes.. We have fossils showing missing links.. What can i say to better address my point to a theist, what argument should i used when confronted with "micro yes macro no"..
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I had never heard of this Micro vs Macro theory of evolution. All I studied was evolution.
The Bible I believe can be used to refute their claims if conventional science will not get through them.
I would first ask whether the believer believes in Watson and Crick's DNA model and Mendelian inheritance which I assume they have no problem with.
I would argue that God created Adam, and from Adam's rib he created Eve.
Which means Eve was a clone of Adam because Adam's rib has somatic cells and considering god has advanced cloning abilities to use somatic cells, Eve should be a perfect clone of Adam and she would have the exact same DNA. I would also guess since they were the first people made there would be no mutations in their genetic structure. so Eve and Adam would be Identical genotypically and so also phenotypically.
Their story continues that they propagated which would imply sexual propagation which would mean they had male and female characteristics. However having the same genotypical and phenotypical structures they would be hermaphrodites and have both male and female reproductive organs. These would of course be perfect because they claim these 2 people to be perfect humans and so both sets of reproductive organs in either individual would be functional.
Adam & Eve being the ancestors of modern man implies, that they gave birth to children that eventually gave birth to us via a long line of succession spanning over 6000 years i presume. and since humans today harbour only one genotypical or phenotypical sexual characteristic (with some exceptions of course which only prove the rule), we are a different species to what they were.
Thus if they do not wish to believe that we evolved from apes they can at the very least concede that we evolved from another species which Adam represented thus proving Macro evolution.
Despite this if they reject evolution then all you can advise them is to take a leaf out of Adams book and go fuck themselves....
The current position of the goalpost is between micro and macro evolution. They will probably move the goalpost soon again. But it's much harder to provide sufficient evidence when the process can't actually be observed.
Most likely, macro evolution will have to be divided into several different parts, and then the goalpost will be moved one part at a time.
First off, when I say an ape, I mean a Miocene ape so there should be no misunderstanding.
We label humans as apes now but that is just a label we humans gave ourselves with enough propaganda on the subject.
So I would not get into that no matter how many trolls may try.
"Isn't macro just micro plus hell of a lot more time and changes.."
Yes it is basically and crudely that.
If you are a scientists you cannot postulate that without evidence else a tree could become a fridge given enough time would it?
Basically more time does not imply more drastic changes.
Micro evolution implies changes but it says nothing on their limits since it does not dare to postulate them.
Macro evolution is postulating that the limits of changes extend to a particular point(completely different specie)
Thus it is a hypothesis that requires even more evidence to support then Micro evolution is.
It is an extraordinary claim even though most people would not like to admit this fact.
Like all extraordinary claims it requires extraordinary evidence.
Currently there is no real evidence to suggest that an insect can evolve to the point of becoming a bird given enough time.
Though there is evidence that an insect evolves into another very very similar type of insect.(micro evolution)
That is where the actual science is at the moment.(micro evolution)
Beyond that is pure propaganda put forward in the war the theists have started(and lost) to get creationism thought at schools.
Missing links:
Is a term put forward by Darwin in his paper "origin of man".
The idea is this:
IF man evolved from another completely different specie through a very very long period of time (macro evolution), this should show up in the fossil record.
What would show up?
Intermediary species in between that would show a very linear progression from ape(proposed by Darwin) and a human fossil.
Basically a version of an ape which has human like features.
Eg: an ape in all respects(feet, etc) with same type of rib-cage humans have.
(An Ape has a V-type of rib cage while a human has an M-type of rib cage.)
etc...
Darwinian evolution(natural selection) predicts gradual evolution over a long period of time(micro evolution) thus an ape could not one day be an ape and another be a human.(through 1 massive mutation)
Macro evolution is basically a postulation/hypothesis that asks this question:
Given even more time then Micro evolution, could an ape become completely different then an ape to become a human?
The links should be in the fossil record if Darwin was right about macro evolution for human origins.
That is why they are called the missing links.
Well, Darwin failed at showing those "links" himself so HE estimated that the Missing links should be found in around 10 years given the rate at which fossils were being uncovered at the time, ELSE HE SAID THAT IF THEY ARE NOT FOUND BY THEN, HIS HYPOTHESIS WOULD BE WRONG.
(he was a scientists and did criticize his own work as every other good scientist would)
Some 100 years passed and still there are no links even though we were looking really hard for them.
"We have fossils showing missing links"
Nope we do not, what we have is fossils showing apes and their versions(decedents of apes(micro evolution versions of apes))
There is no definitive evidence that any of the fossils we have of apes show human like features.(human structure vs ape structure)
But if you think there is, then please tell me where to find it since I have been digging hard for it and all the papers I have read on the subject missed it somehow.
"What can i say to better address my point to a theist, what argument should i used when confronted with "micro yes macro no"..
Why would you need to force the idea that an explanation is needed to show that the explanation in the bible is the wrong one?
You must first accept the fact that there are things we do not know.
Then accept the fact that even if you deliver the proof that macro evolution happened the theist will not consider it as the truth anyway.(say something like, that is just your opinion or something)
So instead of falling for the god of the gaps trap, you should just hit the theist where it hurts the most.
My reply would be:
Even if we do not know anything about human origins, I am 100% sure that the story you have in the bible is a lie, logic proves it.
(then show the logical contradictions)
Turn the ball in his court, where you are indirectly showing him that the burden of proof is actually on him, he is the one proposing an explanation for human origins and he is the one that should be providing the logic/evidence.
You just need to admit that you do not know when you actually do not know.
If you can show that you are humble and not as arrogant as the theist, you already won the argument.
If he cannot, then regardless if macro evolution was the cause of human origins or not, it does not matter since his explanation is wrong/inaccurate.
@ Jeff Vella Leone: I disagree with you.
I accept that Darwin himself proposed that his theory would fall short if missing links weren't found but that is not to say that we haven't found any.
The fossil record is littered with intermediates and they do reflect the tree of life.
every intermediary unearthed reflects a link of the chain.
What believers want is to argue without knowledge. whenever asked they say show me the crocoduck or some other nonsensical thing. its as if the want to wake up tomorrow and see an insect change into a bird but that is ridiculous.
Micro evolution is just a term they created to accept part of the hypothesis they like and reject what does not agree with their dogma. You see in medical practice evolution is critical to understand germ theory of disease and microorganisms evolve to cause resistance against antibiotics. To understand germ theory of disease it is essential to accept evolution but saying evolution is correct would imply that man could evolve from the apes.
To resolve this discrepancy they came up with this bull shit of micro vs macro evolution. Darwin does not talk of micro or macro evolution. It is evolution through natural selection.
I believe the smithsonian museum houses the fossils of human evolution on display. though I have not seen it myself in person, I have seen pictures of it.
The problem truly is of wilful ignorance. evolution by natural selection take successive generations to inherit characteristics in a population and therefor is not observable in a lifetime. the only objective way to observe it is by looking at the fossil record. But that requires study.
I truly believe it is will full ignorance to just reject the theory of evolution because they don't want to study its concepts and see them unfold but they would spend hours during over a book of gibberish finding hidden prophesies using cryptographic techniques and other such nonsense.
The catholic church has accepted the theory of evolution as well. I mean the biggest oppressors of science known to history have conceded their stand and even then people want to be willfully ignorant.
The recurrent laryngeal nerve in mammals is another example of evolution and so are the vestigial organs.
In my opinion any one truly willing to learn evolution is worthy of your time to teach, however if brought up in a debate I do not thing you will convince them as they are being wilfully ignorant and you will not be able to convince them unless they really want to study it.
In my opinion Evolution by natural selection is one of the most beautiful and complex theories ever proposed and one that explains the diversity of life in the most simplistic and beautiful way but it is hard to understand and requires an open mind.
missing links are being discovered everyday and you can go online and look at the fossil record which reflects them
"@ Jeff Vella Leone: I disagree with you."
I just pointed out what knowledge is available out there, so you can disagree with what I claimed about that knowledge availability, not with me lol.
"The fossil record is littered with intermediates and they do reflect the tree of life."
They can mostly if not all be classified as micro evolution or other unknown species or branches rather then macro evolved from an ancestor. (basically in nature you can have a tiger and a leopard without the need to have the leopard macro evolve from a tiger even if they might appear as "intermediates")
A link is when the structure of some part of the body belong(/very similar) to an ape while others belong to a human(or vice versa), thus showing that slow change over time Darwin predicted.
Evolution occurs with adaptation to an environment, you must also provide the environment that pushed towards that change.
Until that environment is provided macro evolution for human origins remains an unsupported extraordinary claim.
"What believers want is to argue without knowledge."
Completely agree, but that does not mean that atheists have the free pass to claim things they don't know either.
"Micro evolution is just a term they created to accept part of the hypothesis they like and reject what does not agree with their dogma."
No that is copy paste propaganda you have heard somewhere.
Have a read here please:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01
"I believe the Smithsonian museum houses the fossils of human evolution on display. though I have not seen it myself in person, I have seen pictures of it."
Did you find any pictures that shows how an ape fossil has human features?
Please i would like to find one myself.
It is not an argument that people so much believe a subject that they have a display of it, or even a museum for it.
With your same argument then the creationist museum has science to back him up right?
When it comes to scientific papers the evidence in them falls short to 0 my friend.
But I would be happy if you prove me wrong. This is a subject I have huge interest in.
"only objective way to observe it is by looking at the fossil record. But that requires study."
It is not the only way, but looking at fossils yes it requires study, I agree.
"it is will full ignorance to just reject the theory of evolution because they don't want to study its concepts"
yea I agree, but not all do that, some see macro evolution as irrelevant to their faith.
eg:
"The catholic church has accepted the theory of evolution as well."
But here you are arguing with someone who cares about the truth not someone who wants to defend their faith or is ready to accept lies as long as they don't bother him like the catholic church.
"The recurrent laryngeal nerve in mammals is another example of evolution and so are the vestigial organs."
How are they proof of macro evolution?
You do understand that micro evolution alone could explain all species on earth right?
or that thought never crossed your mind?
"In my opinion Evolution by natural selection is one of the most beautiful and complex theories ever proposed and one that explains the diversity of life in the most simplistic and beautiful way but it is hard to understand and requires an open mind."
Yea that is what Darwin proposed in his paper:
"NATURAL SELECTION" (postulated micro-evolution )
Then he made another paper named:
"Origins Of Man"(postulated macro-evolution)
the first has been proven that it happens and few disagree with it except some brainless theists and the ignorant.
the latter is the subject I was addressing.
You seem to not understand the distinction.
(he did not give them those names at the time we agree on that)
"missing links are being discovered everyday and you can go online and look at the fossil record which reflects them"
Nope that is a lie, you failed to even address my description of what missing links are, so should I even dignify you with a reply? or should I wait till you actually start addressing my points on the subject?
Public notice: You shouldn't trust anything Jeff says on this subject. He does not think human beings are descendant from the other animals on Earth (specifically primates), which puts him firmly in crackpot land on this subject.
As far as macro vs. micro, I don't see the controversy. It's a given that theist, christians cherry pick instead of using logic for their arguments. DNA has proven that were are all descendants from the same single cell. Yes humans are descended from a common ape ancestor, I don't care what Jeff says on the subject.
"I don't see the controversy. It's a given that theist, christians cherry pick instead of using logic for their arguments."
They do that, but that does not mean they always do it.
That is called a generalization fallacy where you are claiming that just because they are theists they will always cherry pick subjects when you say "It's a given".
"DNA has proven that were are all descendants from the same single cell."
Nope it did not, where is this proof?
"DNA has proven that were are all descendants from the same single cell. "
I wonder how are you going to support that claim?
A cell does not necessarily have a nucleus, which contains the DNA.
You seem to jump to Abiogenesis here instead of evolution which is well acknowledged that it is not proven or supported with enough evidence yet.
"I don't care what Jeff says on the subject."
We agree, you are right, you should not care what anybody says, that is a good quality, but you should get your facts strait before making unsupported claims.
I'm not biting Jeff.
I believe what he meant to say was that the Identification of the DNA Structure by Watson and Crick supported the theory of Evolution as it helps explain inheritance patters and so is considered to be in support of darwinian theory. It does not refute evolutionary theory. I agree with you that it in no way says that life arose from a single cell but it does help explain inheritance patterns that were difficult to explain purely based on evolution by natural selection and of course ushered in the age of genetics.
Again as far as micro evolution is concerned, I have not read any papers that defines this term and I do not know of the defined set points concerning where micro evolution ends and macro begins. I do believe evolution by natural selection at present is the best theory to describe diversity of species until of course a better theory comes along and I do agree that the alternative they propose is not just disagreeable but absurd.
"DNA Structure by Watson and Crick supported the theory of Evolution"
how did it support macro evolution?
please explain to me, which parts supports macro evolution?
Any links and quotes would suffice. I am just inquiring here.
"help explain inheritance patterns that were difficult to explain purely based on evolution by natural selection and of course ushered in the age of genetics."
Well in what way did macro evolution help in inheritance patterns?
"I have not read any papers that defines this term"
mainly because most have nothing to add about macro evolution and just address micro-evolution.
The only ones you will find is about social behavior leading to human macro evolution(a small subset of macro evolution).
It was shocking to me that almost all papers just refer to Darwin original paper on the subject as a reference and just move on the specific area they are building a hypothesis on.
So I do not find it surprising that you haven't seen it in papers at all.
"I do believe evolution by natural selection at present is the best theory to describe diversity of species until of course a better theory comes along"
yep you have to believe it indeed, reason won't get you to it, but faith does. :)
I'm teasing, I know you meant "think"
However how do you think that macro evolution makes any sens when it does not even deliver an explanation of why it happened?
"where micro evolution ends and macro begins."
--Micro is evolution in parts, a honeycreeper changes to adopt to an environment through generations but it remains a honey honeycreeper. The older versions die out because they are less adapted and thus the specie has evolved.
Darwin here explained the environments that would allow the honeycreeperer/finches with longer beaks to get more food buried in the tree's cracks and thus survive, while the honeycreepers/finches with smaller beaks won't. Thus the ones with longer beaks survive and the honeycreepers/finches evolve with having longer beaks.
--Macro is when a honeycreeper becomes a crow. (no explanation given of why this happened)
(the idea is that with even more generations the honeycreeper could become an entirely new specie with different body structure)
A theory/hypothesis is an explanation of the facts, it deals with the why it happened.
Darwin delivers the why with his "natural selection" paper for micro-evolution which was magnificent.
But when he proposed the macro-evolution, he did not deliver the explanation, he just postulated the idea with the current evidence he had at the time.
At the time it was indeed a magnificent idea and even I would have thought it made sens, but today when we know so much more about nature his idea is basically nonsense.
The idea proposed that with even MORE TIME than micro-evolution (ie: MILLIONS of years or 10'S OF MILLIONS) an ape would GRADUALLY completely change the STRUCTURE of his body to become human with some UNKNOWN ENVIRONMENT at the time. With the promise that once the fossils will be found (estimated 10 years) the environment would become apparent and we would have the explanation for it.
--New fossils emerged from Darwin time to show that apes were upright walking at 3 mil years already
= scrap the 10's of millions
--More fossils of same apes found at 700 000 years
= scrap the millions of years
--Mt DNA proved that the first mitochondrial human eve came from Africa around 250 000 years ago
= scrap even 1/4 of a million
--More fossils were found of apes and of humans and none of the missing links
= scrap the idea that this was some gradual change, whatever happened was sudden in evolutionary times.
Then the nail in the coffin:
--Darwin and all the experts in the field to this day(100+ years of research) have not been able to even imagine what habitat was required for an ape to adapt to, to evolve/adapt and become human.
I can imagine god creating Adam and Eve, which I know it is bullshit, and YET I cannot imagine this dam environment,
=that is the nail in the coffin for macro evolution for me and any other scientific person.
So if you think this hypothesis(macro-evolution) is somewhat logical or even an explanation at all, please answer the following questions:
--What natural environment could make a night vision creature that hunts at night like a Miocene ape become a color vision human that sucks at hunting at night?
--What kind of environment can you imagine to make such a drastic change like the rib cage structure, from V to M?
--What kind of environment would change the structure of the legs in a way that it cannot handle as much weight and is off balance like the human legs?
We do not walk strait, but the ape walked strait.(we swing our momentum, left and right and we suffer from it when we get old)
--Why could the ape eat everything, his appendix was working and ours simply doesn't, what habitat could explain that?
What all the apes became selective and stopped eating grass/nuts? a collective decision?
--Apes had hair to protect them from cold and sun radiation, we simply don't, what environment could possibly do that?
--What habitat could magically transform an ape in a way that he can modulate?
Apes have no modulation package, they cannot modulate to speak, nature does not generate that magically from nothing, the apes could make very high pitched screams that could be heard from miles and some speculate that they could even sens their preys with it.(some monkeys do to this day, none have a modulation package)
--What natural environment would make an ape become human and be worse then any other ape in basically all the known environments on earth? How does a human outlive an ape if he is not a better version to survive in the wild?
(humans without knowledge cannot survive in the wild, but an ape's body alone can, since he earned the right to survive from millions of years of adaptation in the wild. We humans have a body of someone that have been put in a 5* hotel spa bedroom for millions of years) (That is the only environment I can imagine and it is not a natural environment.)
--In nature the apes were the kings, nothing was hunting them(so many fossils found) and they virtually did not change for millions of years in the fossil record, but suddenly 300 000 years ago or so, they changed into humans by some mysterious natural environment, doesn't seem bullshit to you?
I did not even mention the smaller things like bigger brain size or 1/2 bone thickness for humans compared to apes because those are things that can be debatable.
If one wishes to claim that the structure of bones changes, then he must provide an explanation of why it happened, that is what science demands, not me.
Failure to do so, means that the person is not being scientific but dogmatic.
I honestly do not know what happened, but any other hypothesis is surly much better then the one I cannot even imagine how it could possibly happen.
We know too much about nature to believe that modulation capability just happens randomly, or that color vision happens randomly. These are very complex things we struggle to replicate artificially even though we know how they work(copy paste), to claim that this somewhat happens by some unknown random mutations is an extraordinary claim.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence is simply not there.
There is not even an explanation for it.
I am honest enough to admit the obvious.
Jeff - "DNA has proven that were are all descendants from the same single cell."
Jeff - "I wonder how are you going to support that claim?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
-----------------------
Jeff - "Some 100 years passed and still there are no links even though we were looking really hard for them."
Here is a list of more than 100 of the fossils that Jeff says don't exist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
-----------------------
You will also note, Jeff likes to attack Darwin, and not the modern theory of evolution; this is an almost universal trait among crackpots on this subject who don't seem to realize: Attacks on the original author of a theory are not attacks on the theory itself, and certainly are not attacks on the modern versions of that theory. It doesn't matter if Darwin was wrong on certain subjects, if he beat his wife, or didn't flush after using the bathroom; those are not criticisms of the theory of evolution.
---------------------
Jeff - "Evolution occurs with adaptation to an environment, you must also provide the environment that p̲u̲s̲h̲e̲d̲ ̲t̲o̲w̲a̲r̲d̲s̲ ̲t̲h̲a̲t̲ ̲c̲h̲a̲n̲g̲e̲."
He does not like evolution so he adopts a cartoon version of it, then declares there is no evidence for the cartoon!
As far as theists agreeing with micro evolution and disagreeing with macro the argument can be met with a knowing smirk . Once they have agreed with micro evolution they have agreed with evolution.
exactly, micro evolution easily refutes the creation story of the bible.
How so? Where in the bible does it explain the diversity of races today? As far as im concerned micro evolution might help theists, but macro can destroy abrahamic religions..
if macro "can macro can destroy abrahamic religions" is irrelevant since it is not a hypothesis supported by evidence.
It is not about which hypothesis "can destroy abrahamic religions" but about the truth.
Well the creation story goes that in 7 days he created the earth and all that shit, Micro evolution clearly shows millions of years of micro-evolution in place.
A lot of adaptation was going on to different environments.
Eg: horse shoe crabs(the last remnant of the Cambrian explosion that still exists today) has evolved and adapted when compared to his fossils.
This does not fare well with the idea that god created everything perfect from start.
The evidence of fossils refute the creation story and micro-evolution shows the changes that occurred.
@ AmericanAtheist
I agree with your question, since they often use the "kind" argument. That within each kind, there have been "micro evolution". Giving us wolfs and all the variants of dogs, while there was only one pair of that "kind" on the Ark...
You do not need micro evolution to refute the ark story.
Just throw that story in the bin using basic common sens arguments you already know of prag.
This idea that we NEED something to refute the theistic arguments is nonsense and dogmatic.
If a theistic argument makes sens, I am happy to say that it does, I do not NEED to refute his arguments.
Unfortunately for the theists, all their arguments in support of their book claims are easily shown to be ridiculous either by logic or discoveries we have found.
@ Jeff
"You do not need micro evolution to refute the ark story.
Just throw that story in the bin using basic common sens arguments"
Of course. I completely agree.
I was agreeing with AmericanAtheist's question "How so?" that was directed to your comment that "micro evolution easily refutes the creation story of the bible."
I inadvertently switched from the Creation myth to the Ark myth in the process. My bad.
My point was only that discussing microevolution as an argument against the theists Creation myth and/or Ark myth is not much use. Since these days they happily use their "kind"-argument and claim that microevolution has caused the diversity from these "kinds". They seem to ignore the time scale problem anyway, so that's not much use.
It's better to, just as you say, point out all the logic errors in their myths.
My point was only that discussing microevolution as an argument against the theists Creation myth and/or Ark myth is not much use.
It is true, but it does refute the claim of the 7 day creation.
Not much use because theists avoid defending the creation story with regards on timeline unless he is a young earth creationist or thinks that the days are metaphorically or something.
Else micro-evolution clearly shows that there were no 7 days but much more.
"kind"-argument is used for the ark diversity problem which in my opinion the ark claim has bigger flaws then the diversity and one should focus on those when debating it.
The biggest flaw of it all is that the entire story depicts god as so incompetent and evil that he prefers to be a baby-murderer instead of just giving magical heart attacks to the bad guys, which makes every theist run out of the room when you touch that subject.
Macro evolution is not an event. Evolution is small random mutations in individual genes(not species) selected for success by nature. Those are the only events that occur. Macro evolution is us looking for patterns over long periods of time. If you agree with micro evolution you are agreeing with evolution because that is what evolution is.
FYI: Christians do not believe or disbelieve in evolution, either macro or micro.
Some Protestant sects disbelieve, but they are not the entirety of Christianity. Most Christians have no problem with the science, but object to the theology that atheists attach to the science.
Biblical exegesis requires the proper hermeneutics, and you don't have that. If you want to understand the scripture of a religious tradition (and religious tradition), you should ask an authority on the subject to interpret it for you.
Bullshit! All christians believe in the bible. Therefore ALL christians disbelieve in evolution. They may say that they believe but that is bullshit as well. They will accept evolution if it is modified to fit the biblical dogma. Scientist don't attach theology to science. That is just absurd! As far as asking bible authorities to explain proper hermeneutics, that in itself is absurd. Why would I or ANY logical person what some person just put a spin on things? That is what you are asking. You want us to ask for some cock and bull apologist story full of pseudo-science babble. And BTW I have talked to expert theologians. The top theologian Dr D. James Atwood of TCU for one. He can't fit evolution to biblical teaching....no one can. Most of these guys/gals will tell you that there are things that you are not meant to know or you must have faith. In otherwords bullshit answers.
So yes the entire christian world doesn't believe in evolution...REAL evolution, because they believe in the bible. So don't hand me that BS. John!
@ john Stevens: Heres the problem that I have with this concept of hermeneutics;
1. It starts with the assumption that these books are inerrant.
2. It also assumes that if our interpretation of the book does not match rationality then it is your interpretation that is wrong.
3. (the most important reason I dislike hermeneutics) That you need someone to tell you what the true meaning is.
I come from India. people her are extremely gullible. The religious leaders here all claim that true religions knowledge can come only through them and then they proceed to spout the most absurd of nonsense.
Violence is incited based on their interpretation. Lives are lost based on their interpretation. All because they tell the gullible masses what the books actually say and these so called highly religious masses do not question their findings.
I was posted in the paediatric ICU where a child was suffering from whooping cough (a disease eradicated in the west). we have a nation vaccination schedule to help us get rid of it and still a child was battling for life in the ICU. His mother showed up one day to discharge the patient as she spoke to her local tantric who in his great wisdom after reading his texts found the cure for whooping cough to be (and I shit you not) "Make the child drink rabbits blood."
Now in our common sense that is absurd and anyone recommending that is obviously an idiot. But take another example
In india a controversy arose about saying the slogan out aloud "Bharat Mata Ki jai," which means "praise be to mother India," Now this is a seemingly innocent statement. Any indian proud to be so would love to declare that. but muslim scholars found after their research that it is akin to putting India close to allah and so they should not say it and so cause violent outbursts and marginalised a lot of muslims who would have otherwise had no qualms of saying that if they only rationalised what it meant.
Definitely it was a divisive tactic used by bad politics but you can see the harm it could do. In any other country with a higher education level and common sense prevalent it would not have caused an issue, but in uneducated (not illiterate) india, it was an easy tool for causing an outburst.
If you understand something tell us and we will analyse your idea with our rational thought and as such you can do the same of ours, but to differ to the judgement of another who claims to know what the true message is, is just inhumane.
I know you will counter that in the scientific world we can always differ to the summary of the scientist if we are unable to understand the science and that is not true. science and scientists all advocate reading and interpretation of the study itself over their own interpretation of it. No scientist will tell you that he knows more than the study paper can tell you
@ Jeff
I feel I don't understand what you mean when you use the term macroevolution. There is something here that I can't really identify.
First to clarify, when I use the term "macroevolution" I'm not talking about human origins, instead I'm referring to macroevolution across the entire spectrum of life. For the sake of simplicity of this question, we can completely exclude the human species.
You wrote earlier:
"micro evolution alone could explain all species on earth"
and
"Micro evolution clearly shows millions of years of micro-evolution in place"
I get that the evidence for macroevolution is not on the same level as there is for microevolution (primarily because microevolution can be observed). But as I understand it, macroevolution IS continuous microevolution during much larger time frames. The same basic mechanisms apply in both micro- and macroevolution: mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection.
So when you say that microevolution alone could explain all species on earth, to me it sounds just like your saying: "macroevolution can explain all species on earth, but I don't call it macroevolution"
What about this am I not getting? It feels like you have a different definition of the term macroevolution.
"when I use the term "macroevolution" I'm not talking about human origins"
Yes but you have to understand that the hypothesis started when Darwin saw the humans and the apes and came up with the idea that maybe, just maybe with enough micro-evolution an ape would become a human.
Thus he made the paper "origins of man", but he was clear that there was no evidence for it yet, until the LINKS are found.
Of course Darwin came up with the idea but the 98% of scientific community rejected it for 10 years.
When the creationist wanted to teach creation in schools suddenly the hypothesis was an alternative instead of saying we do not know yet, but we won't allow you to put unscientific claims in schools.
The creationists used politics to claim that if science does not know then our children must at least know about a possible origin.
From then on, more money and effort were spent on the hypothesis and more species were researched including the whale, etc...
But it started all with human origins and it is the only reason it still stands, because human origins is the real focus of creationists, and as long as creationists want their nonsense thought in school as a possible human origin, the scientific community will always have a better alternative even if its totally unscientific.
It is all politics at this point.
"instead I'm referring to macroevolution across the entire spectrum of life. For the sake of simplicity of this question, we can completely exclude the human species."
Fine with me, I am happy to admit that I cannot say that macro evolution does not happen, I am just saying that if it wasn't what happened for humans then whatever happened for humans(lets call it EVENT) has more chance to be the reason for the rest of the other species origin then Macro-evolution is.
EVENT is simply more likely unless someone comes with definitive evidence for macro evolution for other species like 12 intermediate links between specie A and specie B showing the gradual change.
Macro-evolution could exist and could also have had it's part in some species origin, but clearly something much more critical and effective is going on that would explain some of the facts we find in the fossil record.
Trying to use Micro-evolution and exaggerated extensions of it(macro-evolution) to explain "the entire spectrum of life" just does not fit the facts.
(EG: Human origins,Cambrian explosion, mass extinctions, etc...)
I am only using human origins because it is the subject most know about, but the famous Major/Minor Catastrophic events and the Cambrian Explosion are also things which contradict macro-evolution hypothesis.
It requires honesty and humility to accept that there are things we do not know yet on some subjects.
This is one such subject.
"So when you say that microevolution alone could explain all species on earth, to me it sounds just like your saying: "macroevolution can explain all species on earth, but I don't call it macroevolution""
Nope Micro-evolution deals with changes to a specie through adaptation TO AN ENVIRONMENT.
I am sure that all species on earth to this day adapted themselves to the earth's environments in some way, some might have evolved(micro) and some might have remained basically the same.
Explain all species on earth not their origin, we do not know that yet.
Explain meaning why on 1 side of a planet you have this type of wolf while some other place another type.
Creation(after flood) does not get you that. It gets you deformities and extinction through interbreeding.
Millions of years of environment adaptation gets you that.(micro-evolution)
Macro-evolution is implying that completely new species emerge from old ones because of the environment(or unknown mutations), thus trying to explain the origin of all species on earth.
(not even creationist try to answer that question with an explanation except; "god did it")
Those are 2 completely different subjects.
MICRO is explaining the effects of environments on species saying nothing about the origin of completely different species, MACRO is using those prolonged effects to attempt to explain the origin of species without explaining the environments needed for those effects. (prolonged effects does not necessarily mean more change but it is assumed by macro-evolution)
They are 2 completely different claims and that is why Darwin dedicated to them 2 different papers, but evolutionist and the scientific community(mixed with politics) want to put them in the same bin.
Logic clearly shows they are not the same hypothesis, Darwin was a scientist and he knew it, yet some so called Darwinists/Evolutionists think they are the same thing with difference in time.
You have it repeated here:
"where micro evolution ends and macro begins."
As if the validity of one somehow transfers itself on the other.
That is a fallacy and a lie put forward by unscientific people and repeated by the masses as gospel truth without knowing it.
If you wish to claim that the effects of an environment changes a particular specie, you must provide first the environment.
This is a requirement of MICRO EVOLUTION THEORY.
In science you cannot claim that finches evolve with longer beaks without providing an explanation of WHY it happened, thus it provides the environment that helped such a trait to become dominant. Survival of the fittest, ie NATURAL SELECTION
That is why he named the paper NATURAL SELECTION.
He even chose the title of the paper based on the WHY(explanation).
MACRO EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS scraps that requirement(the WHY) and thus it becomes unscientific and contradictory to MICRO EVOLUTION THEORY itself.
Darwin came up with the idea as a possible solution for human origins, and he did a good job, that is how science works.
You must propose ideas/hypothesis, most will be shown to be wrong but some eventually will help in finding a solution/explanation.
This time evidence emerged that showed that Darwin was wrong on that particular hypothesis and I don't blame him for it.
It is shameful that religion/politics poisons everything, even the scientific community but it is the sad truth.
Edit:
Also I would like to point out that what I am saying is that;
The natural environment(in macro-evolution) could not be the reason behind human origins since we cannot even imagine a possible natural environment that explains the facts.
The human body sucks in all the natural environments known to have been on earth.
It is ridiculous to think that one of them could be the reason for the adaptation where some ape specie became human.
According to Natural Selection we being inferior versions to survive in those environments should have died out in those environments, before we acquired the knowledge(eg: fire).
We should instead focus our efforts on things we can at least imagine to find the answer for human origins.
crackpot central... Very sad.
@ Jeff
Thanks for the extensive answer.
To try to sum it up, as I understand it you are saying that the basic difference between micro- and macroevolution is:
- Macroevolution does not give an explanation for what the external pressure is (like environment), that has caused natural selection to push changes towards the results that is observed in the evidence (fossils).
- Macroevolution does not specify the boundaries for the changes that can occur.
My apologies if I'm a bit thick... Unfortunately, I still don't get some of the things you mention about microevolution:
"Trying to use Micro-evolution and exaggerated extensions of it(macro-evolution) to explain "the entire spectrum of life" just does not fit the facts."
Versus your other comments:
"micro evolution alone could explain all species on earth"
(Again, we can completely exclude the origin of the human species. And to clarify, I don't think you're referring to the origin of life.)
You seem to be saying that there is clear evidence of microevolution for millions of years. I was under the impression that the conclusive evidence for microevolution was mostly in very recent times, like the last 50-100 years?
And I interpret that last quote as: microevolution can account for the multitudes of species we have today.
But doesn't that mean that microevolution has crossed the border of "species" and that new species have evolved through the mechanism of microevolution? Or do yo mean something else here?
"Thanks for the extensive answer."
Welcome and thanks for the constructive replies.
"- Macroevolution does not give an explanation for what the external pressure is (like environment), that has caused natural selection to push changes towards the results that is observed in the evidence (fossils)."
Exactly, macro-evolution is an explanation that does not give an explanation.
"A hypothesis also includes an explanation of why the guess may be correct."
http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definit...
That means that macro evolution has not even reached the stages of a scientific hypothesis.
(The explanation Darwin tried to use was Human origins and that is why I hammer it so much.)
Comparing it to a very scientific and well explained Theory as micro-evolution is ridiculous and unscientific.
"- Macroevolution does not specify the boundaries for the changes that can occur."
Nope, Micro does not, but Macro does. It is a difference yes but not the way you put it.
""Trying to use Micro-evolution and exaggerated extensions of it(macro-evolution) to explain "the entire spectrum of life" just does not fit the facts."
Versus your other comments:
"micro evolution alone could explain all species on earth""
I explained this already.
Micro evolution explains all the species on earth, their environments and why they survived while others went extinct.
It is an explanation of all those species that are still with us today and also an explanation for those species that could not survive today because the environment changed.
It says nothing about the origin of those species.
"the entire spectrum of life" includes the origin of life right?
At least that is how I understood it at the time of my post, if I was mistaken then I take that back.
"You seem to be saying that there is clear evidence of micro-evolution for millions of years. I was under the impression that the conclusive evidence for micro-evolution was mostly in very recent times, like the last 50-100 years?"
yes there is clear evidence that species do evolve, like Darwin's finches explained in his paper Natural Selection.
He explained that through millions of years some finches evolved to adapt to one environments and others adapted to another environment. He even went as fast as providing evolutionary stages(links) for Micro-evolution.
It is clear evidence, it is not a fact like the bacteria micro-evolution process we can see in the labs though.
Evidence and a fact are different and also substantiate a Theory in different ways.
"conclusive evidence for micro-evolution was mostly in very recent times"
Are you referring to the bacteria?
We know that for bacteria micro-evolution is a fact, but for the rest of the specie that we cannot observe it is a Scientific Theory.
"And I interpret that last quote as: microevolution can account for the multitudes of species we have today."
Correct if by species you mean every variation can be explained through the effects of a natural environment.
(remember not even mentioning the original origin of species, but the effects of the environment on those species)
"But doesn't that mean that microevolution has crossed the border of "species" and that new species have evolved through the mechanism of microevolution? Or do yo mean something else here?"
Micro -evolution is an explanation why species change because of a natural environment, not how far they can change. It leaves that question open/not addressed.
If it "crossed the border of "species"" is not addressed by micro-evolution but addressed by macro-evolution.
Micro answers the question:
Does the environment change a specie?
Macro answers the question:
Could Micro-evolution also explain the origin of completely new species?
If you truly understand both questions you should know that one has nothing to do with the other, they are different questions and require different type of evidence and quality of evidence.
It is one thing to ask:
Can a car move?
and another thing to ask:
can a car fly since it can move?
"If you truly understand both questions you should know that one has nothing to do with the other, they are different questions and require different type of evidence and quality of evidence."
Thanks. Processing...
Pages