Results 1 to 25 of 41
-
05-22-2004, 10:31 AM #1Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Southern Cal
- Posts
- 1,284
Creationist versus Evolutionist - all encompassing thread
For anyone who wants to discuss Creation versus Evolution.
To start off:
1. What is the thoery of Evolution?
2. What is micro-evolution?
3. What is macro-evolution?
Be my guess.
-
05-22-2004, 10:36 AM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2002
- Posts
- 1,578
We all know what those 3 terms of Evolution mean. Thing is, even though something changes over time and over time, my thing is that something still had to create that species so it can evolve over time into something else.
We can argue it down to the dirt, but it all comes down to your beliefs. basicallyMoney is the root of all evil. So if you don't want to go crazy, give it all to me
-
05-22-2004, 10:39 AM #3Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Southern Cal
- Posts
- 1,284
I don't think some people do.
Evolution is a proven fact and is observed.
Creationist cannot denied that evolution is a proven and observed fact. Thus they devided it into micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They admit only micro-evolution exist, but not macro-evolution.
-
05-22-2004, 02:08 PM #4Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Location
- NY, NY
- Posts
- 3,974
It just so happens that we had a debate in english class about evolution vs. Creationism.
I wrote an opening statement.
You can find it here: www.420th.com/temp/religion.doc
very interesting read...webmaster A T 420th.com
What is my Itunes playing? Visit 420th.com/nowplaying.jsp to find out.
Ask the monkey: http://www.monkeyfaq.com
-
05-22-2004, 04:58 PM #5Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- New Zealand
- Posts
- 357
Well as a practising Catholic I don't really think arguing about this will do anyone any good. Just add to their ego?
-
05-22-2004, 05:00 PM #6Predatory Poster
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Goleta, CA
- Posts
- 5,566
This isn't a religious forum and this type of thread keeps popping up. It usually ends up in my religion is better than yours or whatever. Thank you forproving my point by starting it again and I'll give it a awhile before the fun starts.
*begins making popcorn
*waits for LaurenStephens to soapboxPatron: I'd like my free lunch please.
Cafe Manager: Free lunch? Did you read the fine print stating it was an April Fool's joke.
Patron: I read the same way I listen, I ignore the parts I don't agree with. I'm suing you for false advertising.
Cafe Owner: Is our lawyer still working pro bono?
-
05-22-2004, 05:04 PM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2002
- Posts
- 1,578
It really doesn't end up in a My religion is better than yours. It always end up with someone trying their best to prove you wrong with links that God doesn't exist. Crazy huh haha
Money is the root of all evil. So if you don't want to go crazy, give it all to me
-
05-22-2004, 05:05 PM #8Predatory Poster
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Goleta, CA
- Posts
- 5,566
Atheism is a religion whether you like it or not.
* It begins dun dun dunPatron: I'd like my free lunch please.
Cafe Manager: Free lunch? Did you read the fine print stating it was an April Fool's joke.
Patron: I read the same way I listen, I ignore the parts I don't agree with. I'm suing you for false advertising.
Cafe Owner: Is our lawyer still working pro bono?
-
05-22-2004, 05:16 PM #9Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2002
- Posts
- 1,578
If your Atheist.. ok
Im not going to try to make you believe in God, just don't question my beliefs.. People tend to ask crazy questions.. "Have You Seen God"
To my knowledge, no religion has Seen their God. Some build statues, but have they actually seen their God. Plus, its a crazy question.
People tend to ask that stupid question because they know you can't answer the whys. NO ONE KNOWSMoney is the root of all evil. So if you don't want to go crazy, give it all to me
-
05-22-2004, 05:16 PM #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Posts
- 1,003
Originally posted by ilyash
It just so happens that we had a debate in english class about evolution vs. Creationism.
I wrote an opening statement.
You can find it here: www.420th.com/temp/religion.doc
very interesting read...
-
05-22-2004, 05:21 PM #11Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2002
- Posts
- 1,578
Tooken from the .doc : If anything God is female because only women can give life
lol.. Not to offend you , but thats the dumbest and most unthought comment I have ever read. Where do some of you guys come up with this stuff at.
Oh well.. this is my last reply on topics like this... its really useless.Money is the root of all evil. So if you don't want to go crazy, give it all to me
-
05-23-2004, 12:34 AM #12Newbie
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- St. Cloud, FL
- Posts
- 16
To start off:
1. What is the thoery of Evolution?
2. What is micro-evolution?
3. What is macro-evolution?
I am a christian who happens to believe in evolution. Macro, micro, or whatever, evolution is real. The only way you can choose not to believe it is to either be ignorant of, or choose to ignore mountains of scientific data. The debate we're having about evolution is the same debate that was happening when scientists discovered dna, or that disease was caused by germs, or that the earth was round, orbits the sun, and is NOT the center of the universe. Just because we can explain all this "magic" in nature (even our own existance) with science, it doesn't mean we have to stop believing in God, or stop believing we are his special creation.
-
05-23-2004, 01:47 AM #13Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Southern Cal
- Posts
- 1,284
Originally posted by blaix
I am a christian who happens to believe in evolution. Macro, micro, or whatever, evolution is real. The only way you can choose not to believe it is to either be ignorant of, or choose to ignore mountains of scientific data. The debate we're having about evolution is the same debate that was happening when scientists discovered dna, or that disease was caused by germs, or that the earth was round, orbits the sun, and is NOT the center of the universe. Just because we can explain all this "magic" in nature (even our own existance) with science, it doesn't mean we have to stop believing in God, or stop believing we are his special creation.
Although I'm an atheist, I say props to you.
I respect your beliefs as well as being an intellectual.
-
05-23-2004, 02:32 AM #14Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 24,027
Originally posted by hycloud
. . . Thus they devided it into micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
-
05-23-2004, 09:05 AM #15Newbie
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- St. Cloud, FL
- Posts
- 16
Originally posted by Aussie Bob
Can you show the absolute and undisputed origins of the terminology "micro and macro evolution"?
The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist. Moreover Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition.Last edited by blaix; 05-23-2004 at 09:09 AM.
-
05-23-2004, 09:45 AM #16Newbie
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- St. Cloud, FL
- Posts
- 16
I started reading further on that website and found:
The term has been revived by a number of authors such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibrium theory (see Eldredge's 1992 Macroevolutionary Dynamics ), but there is a tendency in these authors to revert to the orthogenetic view that something other than within-species processes are causing macroevolution, although they disavow the orthogenetic view that evolution is progressing anywhere.
Creationists jumped on the new terms and this new theory to argue that only God could explain the sudden creation of new species. But it turns out this theory was only a different way of looking at Darwinian evolution (gradualism, "slow" chage). When you look at a chart showing punctuated equilibrium next to another showing Darwinian gradualism, you can see that they show the exact same thing, only with different timelines. Punctuated equilibrium looks at a broad range of time, making it appear that new species were created "instantly" despite the fact that this "instant" was actually a very long period in history. Darwinian gradulism simply looks at this long period when species are actually changing, not worrying about the other periods when they remain constant.
Anyway, I'm off the subject, but here's the interesting conclusion to the web page regarding the history of micro and macro evolution:
Conclusion
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).
The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. [snip]
-
05-23-2004, 10:10 AM #17Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 24,027
Originally posted by blaix
. . . Looks like I was wrong to say that it was created by creationists and I'm sorry.
No worries. Just so as we are all clear that the terminology of micro/macro evolution was not originally created by creationists.
-
05-23-2004, 10:36 AM #18Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Location
- NY, NY
- Posts
- 3,974
Originally posted by JWise
lol.. Not to offend you , but thats the dumbest and most unthought comment I have ever read. Where do some of you guys come up with this stuff at.
Oh well.. this is my last reply on topics like this... its really useless.
How is that unthoughtful and dumb.webmaster A T 420th.com
What is my Itunes playing? Visit 420th.com/nowplaying.jsp to find out.
Ask the monkey: http://www.monkeyfaq.com
-
05-23-2004, 11:25 AM #19Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Southern Cal
- Posts
- 1,284
Originally posted by Aussie Bob
No worries. Just so as we are all clear that the terminology of micro/macro evolution was not originally created by creationists. [/B]
The only real difference between microevolution and macroevolution is scale. The scale of how much genes can vary before they are considered a new species.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ..._evo_micro.htm
-
05-23-2004, 11:34 AM #20Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Southern Cal
- Posts
- 1,284
Here is something else I found. This scientist who studies evolution agrees with me that the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is "scale".
A new book by Niles Eldredge (who co-authored the famous paper explaining the theory of punctuated equilibrium with now more well-known colleague Stephen Jay Gould) discusses this very topic, among many others. It's called The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, and I encourage everybody to go out and buy a copy. Maybe two. Guys like this need all the support they can get.
One of Eldredge's statements in the book summarizes the main point here: "There is utter continuity in evolutionary processes from the smallest scales (microevolution) up through the largest scales (macroevolution)" [p. 119].
Here are some of the other things he had to say on the microevolution/macroevolution topic:
Evolutionary processes taking place in relatively small scales of space and time connect to larger-scale entities, processes, and events to produce the entire history of life from the smallest incremental evolutionary change to the vast spectrum running from the simplest bacteria on up through the complex fungi, plants, and animals--from, in other words, the small-scale changes of so-called microevolution on up through the larger-scaled changes often referred to as macroevolution. This tremendously diverse array of life, spanning at least 3.5 billion years of Earth history, is all connected by a pattern of nested sets of genetic and anatomical similarity that can rationally be explained only as the simple outcome of a natural shared descent with modification [pp. 62-3].
Patterns of evolutionary change within species seem no different in principle just milder in degree from the sorts of changes we see between closely related species. All evolutionary changes are produced by natural selection working each generation on the variation presented to it [p. 76].
The evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described--primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection--going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species--i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life [emphasis in original, p. 76].
Microevolution and macroevolution differ only as a matter of scale, as we have seen from the connectedness of all life, and from the sliding scale of events--from the simplest, smallest evolutionary changes up through the enormous effects wrought as the aftermath of global mass extinctions [p. 88].
Creationists say there can be variation within kinds (microevolution) but not between kinds (macroevolution). Biologists assert that there has been one history of life: all life has descended from a single common ancestor; therefore one process--evolution--is responsible for the diversity we see [p. 123].
-
05-23-2004, 11:37 AM #21Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Tooken from the .doc : If anything God is female because only women can give lifeOriginally posted by JWise
lol.. Not to offend you , but thats the dumbest and most unthought comment I have ever read. Where do some of you guys come up with this stuff at.
Oh well.. this is my last reply on topics like this... its really useless.
unthought?
Where do some of you guys come up with this stuff at.
I sincerely hope English is not your first language, otherwise I cannot ever even consider your point of view due to your lack of 3rd-grade grammatical and spelling skills.
-
05-23-2004, 12:25 PM #22Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 24,027
Originally posted by SniperDevil
. . . I sincerely hope English is not your first language, otherwise I cannot ever even consider your point of view due to your lack of 3rd-grade grammatical and spelling skills.
-
05-23-2004, 12:33 PM #23Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- Trouble will find me!
- Posts
- 1,470
Originally posted by nzbm
Well as a practising Catholic I don't really think arguing about this will do anyone any good. Just add to their ego?
Originally posted by blaix
I am a christian who happens to believe in evolution. Macro, micro, or whatever, evolution is real. The only way you can choose not to believe it is to either be ignorant of, or choose to ignore mountains of scientific data.Last edited by s.h.a.zz.y; 05-23-2004 at 12:37 PM.
^^ IM WITH STUPID!! ^^
"The only way to overcome fear, is to challenge it head on"
"The quickest way to get over a woman, is to get under another"
-
05-23-2004, 12:39 PM #24Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
No need to degrade someone because of their grammatical abilities. English is not everyone's first language and in discussions like this, rather than looking for some vantage point to attack them, it's best to let grammatical issues slide a bit.
-
05-23-2004, 12:48 PM #25Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Location
- Southern Cal
- Posts
- 1,284
Originally posted by SniperDevil
I couldn't disagree more... this applies in all facets of personal and business communication. For instance, when you sign up for a hosting package on a company's site that has several blatant and embarrassing grammar and spelling errors, and moreso when you receive support replies and such, it definitely lowers the expectations of the customer, and the overall professionalism and reputation of the company.
Then again, not everyone is cartering their services to the English speaking public.