BTW, microevolution, sure, no problem.
Macroevolution? Uh, no. No proof at all of this, and nothing in nature showing it to be true. A big ol fairy tale repeated often by the church of Evolutionary Thinking and the Church of i am.
It would be easier to believe Jim Tressel could become Charlie Weis if only given enough time and let volcanoes, sun spots, radiation, gravity, meteors, and cows passing gas do their work. That wouldn't even be macroevolution since they are the same species, but you have to admit pretty unbelievable for Jim to ever become Charlie.
36 comments
"No proof at all of this..."
Translation: "La! la! la! I can't hear you!"
On a lighter note....
Wouldn't Jim Tressel becoming Charlie Weis be de-evolution?
There is no "micro" or "macro." There is only evolution .
The only people who have ever had the idea that evolution means "one species spontaneously becoming an entirely different species" are fundie idiots like yourself.
There is no such thing as micro-evolution or macro-evolution , there is only evolution .
Fucking uneducated retards!
You are right. There is absolutely no proof of "macro" evolution. All the proof we have is for "micro" evolution. Which seems fitting seeing as there is no such thing as "macro" evolution. There is only evolution - which is exactly what you think "micro" evolution is.
Because get this moron - the word species? Its just a fucking word. A filing system tool. Animals are just animals. There is no species gene or species organ that must magically transform for an animal to "change" species. Animals go through tiny minor changes ("micro" evolution) and given enough of those minor changes end up so different from the original that WE decided to call them a new "species".
And nice analogy. You attempt to disprove macro evolution but of course point out that even it could happen it wouldn't be macro evolution - it would be micro because they are the same species! Thus disproving micro evolution, you know the thing you think is "no problem". Well done sir.
Alright fine. Propose a mechanism that prevents all those micro changes from accumulating into macro.
I'll be here waiting.
Actually, I won't because you're a moron.
The difference between micro- and macroevolution is purely quantitative. There's not an invisible barrier between them any more than there's an invisible barrier between the numbers 1 and 1,000,000,000.
Hi TB777, The Nut House seems to be right place for you. Belief in a supernatural sky-daddy who poofed everything into existence?
"Macroevolution? Uh, no. No proof at all of this, and nothing in nature showing it to be true."
We have the shared pseudogenes. We win.
Charlie Weis? Isn't he that very fat Notre Dame coach? You could make THREE Jim Tressels out of him.
The other way round, though? I think not, farting cattle notwithstanding.
fergus
*sigh*
No, the creationists didn't "make up" macro- and micro-evolution, the terms were coined by biologist and evolutionist Yuri Philipchenko.
Yes, the terms have distinct meanings, macroevolution is a cladistic division at the taxonomic level of species or above , microevolution is change of allele frequency within a population of organisms sharing a common gene pool.
No, it there is not believed to be a different mechanism at work, nor is there a shortage of evidence for either macro- or micro-evolution.
Yes, both terms are used in the scientific literature by real biologists with lab-coats n' stuff.
"When sleep or hide makes the difference in macroevolution" - Isaac Casanovas-Vilar et al, PNAS 105:E56.
"A Localized Negative Genetic Correlation Constrains Microevolution of Coat Color in Wild Sheep" - J. Gratten et al, Science 319:318-320. (What? No stripy sticks?!)
Also,
The microevolution/macroevolution distinction is particularly revealing. In evolutionary biology, microevolution refers to evolutionary processes operating within a species. Although scientists sometimes colloquially refer to macroevolution as “evolution above the species level,” this definition does not do justice to the complexity of topics included within the concept. Macroevolution refers to patterns that emerge as species and lineages branch through time, including the rate and pace of evolutionary change, adaptive radiation, morphological trends in lineages, extinction or branching of a lineage, concepts such as species sorting, and the emergence of major new morphological features (such as segmentation, or shells, or the fusion or loss of bones). Decades ago, creationists began to use microevolution and macroevolution idiosyncratically. Creationists' use of “microevolution” is not dissimilar to that of evolutionary biologists, although they apply it not just to species but to evolution within the limits of a specially created “kind” of organism. When ID supporters and other creationists claim to accept some evolution, they generally mean it in this limited sense of evolution “within the kind.” A larger distinction occurs in the creationist definition of macroevolution, which to them refers to (unacceptable) common ancestry of different created kinds. It also refers to the acquisition of major morphological features or body plan changes, also considered impossible without the direct involvement of God. Both creation science and ID approach the micro/macro divide similarly: microevolution is accepted, and macroevolution (their definition) is rejected.
And when you put a bunch of microevolution together, what do you get?
In the last 150 years, we have bred dogs to the point that some purebreds cannot breed without human intervention. Who knows where we will take this "experiment in evolution" over the next hundred years.
" . . .the Church of i am."
No one has touched on this, so I will. Isn't I AM, a phrase your God uses in his Bible as a name for himself? If you're a Christian, don't you belong to the church of I AM? Just asking.
LeoKnox
Note that in no scientific textbook ever will you find the terms 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', any more than 'darwinism'.
The strawmen marching 2 by 2...
@Anonymous Tau:
Apart from...
"The Evolution of Adaptive Systems: The General Theory of Evolution" By James Patrick Brock.
"The Princeton Guide to Ecology" By Simon A. Levin, Stephen R. Carpenter, et al.
"Evolution in Changing Environments: Some Theoretical Explorations" By Richard Levins.
"Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution" By Quentin C.B. Cronk, Richard M. Bateman, Julie A. Hawkins.
"The Adaptive Landscape in Evolutionary Biology" By Erik Svensson, Ryan Calsbeek.
"Introduction to Physical Anthropology" By Lynn Kilgore, Wenda Trevathan, Russell L. Ciochon.
"Evolution" By Stephen C. Stearns, Rolf Hoekstra.
"Evolution: a biological and palaeontological approach" By P. W. Skelton, Iain Gilmour.
Etc.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
