One of the few lines of defense left is a fictional distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. Both are big words so they must be scientifically sound! Out of necessity they admit that small scale changes are possible (the kind we can observe in our lifetime), but deny that species can undergo great change.
The catch line goes, "a dog can turn into a bigger dog, but it can't turn into a cat". It's wonderfully effective. Use two very common everyday animals and people start thinking about what's directly in front of them. Dogs can change into bigger dogs? Alright, I have seen that happen! Turn into a cat though? That's preposterous; it's crazy talk! The catchphrase creates an immediate reaction, that of distaste for an idea made to look absurd.
What it successfully blindfolds people from seeing is the vast amount of time it would take for a species to change like that. If a dog can change into a bigger dog, it could also change into a smaller one, which could change into a lighter more ambidextrous one, and after billions of years under the right conditions, something resembling a cat. Macroevolution IS microevolution, there's just more time involved. If genetics can change a tiny bit in a short time, they can change substantially given vast amounts of time.
Microevolution is a flimsy way for Creationists to draw a distinction between genetic change they can't deny, and a full on hedonistic belief in evolution they can't admit.
For the visually inclined creationists out there, click the link for an illustrated explanation!
Any thoughts on how I can improve the wording on the image to make it more effective?
Posts
I must say I don't see how it can be made more effective. It's great as is. But that's from an atheist's point of view. Have you tried it on anybody but the choir yet? That would be the acid test I should imagine.
ReplyDeleteIts not easy getting creationists to look at atheist propaganda like that! Their religion has defense mechanisms against that kind of thing.
ReplyDeleteIts also a bit silly, more for us to laugh at then an argument to be refuted : P. I certainly wouldn't mind some creationist responses though!
I think it works effectively as is. If I think of anything I'll be sure to let you know. :)
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Microevolution is a flimsy way for Creationists to draw a distinction between genetic change they can't deny, and a full on hedonistic belief in evolution they can't admit." An unintelligent Creationist, perhaps ... of which I may be considered one before you are finished with me. ;) I think most Creationists would say they support microevolution on the basis of an understanding that says such evolution is within a species (ie. russian moths) whereas macroevolution is cross-species (ie. changing from one species to another). That doesn't imply their understanding is correct but I've observed this definition of micro- and macroevolution as being part of the Creationist's perspective.
Cornelius
Right you are Cornelius, that distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is the one that creationists commonly use. That's also the exact distinction I'm calling "flimsy", because it holds no water scientifically.
ReplyDeleteIf a dog can change into a bigger dog, it could also change into a smaller one, which could change into a lighter more ambidextrous one, and after billions of years under the right conditions, something resembling a cat
ReplyDelete- - -- - - - - -
Actually, this change would need to happen a lot quicker, according to the evolution time line. I think you meant millions, right?
I have repeatedly mentioned to others that Evolution has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt! Any example of Evolution ESTABLISHES that it does in fact exist. The influenza virus does in fact EVOLVE every year despite our every attempt to stop it! The whole world knows that, even the brain-dead creationists!Failure to accept that the smallest "lifeforms" do evolve is not only irresponsible, it proves that there might be something to be said about creationism. Consider for a moment that "Adam and Eve"'s children started inbreeding, we have been de-evolving into IDIOTS! Proof of this can be easily established, just go to a "christian" church! Perhaps after the Dec 21, 2012 Rupture(sic), when the Dumbfuckistaners are returned to the planet Tralfamadore, we may find some peace after all!!
ReplyDeleteKeep up the great work!
I think you've misunderstood what evolution is. Evolution of "the kind we can observe in our lifetime" doesn't strictly exist. Evolution by definition takes place between generations, and even from one generation to the next I'm not sure a genetic variation can be considered 'evolution'.
ReplyDeleteFrom the example you used of a dog 'turning into a bigger dog': this is in fact growth rather than evolution. So it isn't in fact micro or macro-evolution.
Evolution in the broader sense is the gradual change of a species. A nice example is to take a group of fish in a nice lake. Say there are big fish and small fish, it doesn't matter how big the fish is - it's still able to make baby fishes with all the fish. If you take some of the fish and put them in a fast river then the smaller nimbler fish will survive and evolve into their own species, while in a calm river the larger fish are more capable. Over time the fish become separate species as the genetic variations seen in the lake disappears. The two sets of fish won't even be able to breed with each other. This is evolution.
The dog species may become smaller and more agile, but it will never become a cat. A more accurate description for your purposes may be to explain that a prehistoric four legged animal may evolve as the fish in the example into both dogs and cats. Similar to the way the humans didn't (as often stated) evolve from apes. Both species merely evolved from the same prehistoric ancestor, which certainly wasn't human or ape and wouldn't be able to breed with either.
Of course I didn't mean a dog growing up, you idiot.
ReplyDeleteOne of the many examples of evolution we can observe happening in our lifetime-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
Biological dictionary definition of Evolution -
change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
So if a dog's offspring is genetically larger/smaller because of a mutation, it fits the definition.
Evolution is happening all the time, even if genetic variation doesn't stop inter-breeding. I think your definition is to narrow.
The influenza virus(a life form) evolves every year despite man's useless attempts to halt it.Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution DOES indeed happen! The fact that the christian community refuses to accept evolution, but does seem to suffer from the flu, is cosmic joke that I'm quite sure God must get a laugh out of it! But just in case creationism is correct, it might go a long way to explain why christian fundamentalists are so plain dumb. Consider that Adam and Eve had some children that later went on to marry and have children of their own.....WHO did they marry? Creating a gene pool with only TWO people is just NOT healthy, but would tend to explain why man is dumb enough to swallow this crap!
ReplyDeleteEvolution doesn't exist?.....hope you don't suffer too much from the flu!! And please don't think of me as a atheistor agnostic! I am an evolution believing Gnostic and an absolute Deist. I know God wants us to evolve and so we must if man is to survive on this world, inhabited with religious fundamentalists who want to nuke each other and any one else who doesn't agree with their outlook!
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you hide lurking in the shadows of "anonymous"? Are your convictions so flimsy and insecure that you fear if you reveal your identity you would be ridiculed?
Face it like a man, have some testicular fortitude and give a name.
saludos,
raulito
Just found this website. Before discussing what is right and what is wrong with evolution of any sort (micro or macro) it would be first wiser to establish how life came from non-life.
ReplyDeleteFor you said it yourself, "The science of quantum mechanics has only existed since the early 1900's, and already we've been able to use it to get extremely close to understanding the beginning of the observable universe — with no god needed. How close can we get? Approximately a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. (Our current knowledge of physics doesn't work before then.)"
ReplyDeleteStill can't get to anything before the 'bang'...without the Creator God. I see that it was stated as, 'current knowledge' doesnt get us to the point before the trillionth second after and I see that you are hoping one day you will have that knowledge.
I know that no one will ever get there, and that fact that they wont will be just another piece of evidence in favor of Him, but the darkened will do whatever in their power to continue to not see what is clear.