Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
24 online now:
Faith, jar (2 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,671 Year: 18,707/19,786 Month: 1,127/1,705 Week: 379/518 Day: 55/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 38 of 210 (524420)
09-16-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by caffeine
09-16-2009 12:03 PM


Re: What Feduccia Meant
In other words he's been quotemined by certain creationists taking his quote out of context and distorting it.


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by caffeine, posted 09-16-2009 12:03 PM caffeine has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 47 of 210 (524519)
09-17-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Arphy
09-16-2009 7:32 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
However when that biologists makes up imaginative stories about how this process can over millions of years completly change the descendents of the creature studied into something that no longer even remotely looks like the original creature. Then no there is no need for me to accept his speculations.

While I agree that many evolutionists are quite imaginative and given over to some speculation, there still remains a solid foundation in defense of biological evolution. To think that a Chihuahua is the descendant of a wolf is nothing short of undeniable evidence that just such a transformation can occur.

I'm sure you will go on to explain how that is microevolution, and that it is still a canine, but what I am attempting to illustrate is that superficial appearances may be deceiving.

The terms "micro" or "macroevolution" are meaningless terms to science and is simply an attempt to confuse laymen who don't understand the depth of the evidence stacked against them.


"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Arphy, posted 09-16-2009 7:32 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2009 10:24 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 49 of 210 (524526)
09-17-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by New Cat's Eye
09-17-2009 10:24 AM


Re: minor quibble
When I took this class, oh... back in 2001 or so, the biology book we used did go into micro and macro evolution as legitimate scientific concepts.

At any time was it used to deny the whole of evolution?


"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2009 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2009 10:35 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 54 of 210 (524553)
09-17-2009 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by New Cat's Eye
09-17-2009 10:35 AM


Re: minor quibble
No, of course not. But it wasn't meaningless and it wasn't an attempt to confuse laymen.

It is for creationist camps.

I just wanted to let you know that you were mistaken with the whole micro and macro thing not being scientific.

All evolution is on a micro level and never a macro level, is my point. You don't get from an elephant to a manatee over night. It is all through slight gradations over time that lead up to a bigger picture. That would be evident in what they refer to as microevolution. But that's ALL evolution really is.

Where they seem hung up on is that it only goes so far, saying things like "You can never get a cat from a dog!" Well, yeah, no shit, but that's not how it works and there is not a single evolutionary biologist who would insinuate otherwise.


"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2009 10:35 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 09-17-2009 2:44 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5826
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 59 of 210 (524580)
09-17-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NosyNed
09-17-2009 2:44 PM


Re: Micro Macro
I do think the terms have been used in biology. My understanding is that there is a recognition that to cross the species boundary requires something more than just the gradual steps. The micro/macro is not referring to the size of any changes.

For the most part I agree with you, hence my "You can't get a cat from a dog!" Surely though creationists don't use it that way since there is no argument that different species cannot breed with one another. There is obviously more to it than that.

For microevolution they state that only a canine can produce after its own kind and never will that ever change. Macroevolution is simply microevolution combined with enough preceding gradations that eventually you have a whole new classified specie altogether. One such evidence is that they cannot breed with one another, yet the morphological similarities point to common ancestry.

I think it is now recognized that speciation can occur under a lot of different circumstance so maybe the focus on a split between "micro" and "macro" isn't so interesting now but it is still a valid biological term however much creationists misuse and misunderstand it.

I honestly did not know those were terms common to biology or anthropology. Thanks for the correction.


"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 09-17-2009 2:44 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Wounded King, posted 09-17-2009 4:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019