Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfnhmuZ27eQ
From "Clockwise". His best work IMO.
Wow! I am so sorry I did not enter the site when the discussion was happening to take part in it! You all handed it beautifully. Why do people try to criticize things they have not even begun to study about? Why do they think they do not need to study first?
aperez241,
"Why do [anti-evolutionists] think they do not need to study first?"
Because, the KNOW they have the truth, so why bother with the facts? They lack that humility that reasonable people like yourself take for granted.
Nothing on the news about evolution being falsified still, I did find this though...
"The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The brief also stated that the term "creation science" as used that law embodied religious dogma, and that "teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education". This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point. According to anthropologists Almquist and Cronin, the brief is the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."
There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution. The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."
Sheldon,
Really nice summary in a nutshell! If you don't object, I'll keep a copy of that handy.
Still waiting for a citation or quote from Campbell's Biology that "timescales are irrelevant to micro and macro evolution" or that "they are different processes", I guess Breezy is an apropos name for you John as you disappear in a puff of smoke yet again without bothering to evidence your claims or answer any salient questions about them.
That 9th commandment is always going to be a stumbling block for you it seems.
@Sheldon,
I do not think he is going to answer at all.
Nor do I, I gave up long ago expecting candid answers from him. However I will always point out such bias and dishonesty.
Creationists, you have to laugh.
when did you expect them to be honest? shelly its not really worth a try..
oh look, they're like their god....dishonest and very cunning...shame on them.
aperez241,
Answering his questions is like attempting to divide 2 by 0. Take my only comment on time, "Timescales do not matter, that's a secondary observation with no repercussions on evolution." That seems to me like an easy to understand comment: Timescales are a consequence, not a prerequisite, of change. Time is a secondary quality of evolution; and is not the primary distinguishing factor between micro and macro evolution.
Yet I'm supposed to find a citation from my textbook stating that "timescales are irrelevant to micro and macro evolution" or else. To ask for such a thing demonstrates no comprehension. I rather divide 2 by 0.
Time is a requirement for change: Δx/Δt.
A change in X divided by a change in Time, shows time is a requirement for change?
(x₁ - x₀)/(t₁ - t₀)
That is why it is called evolution in biology, because the idea already existed in math and physics under that name. Time is built into the concept at the lowest level.
You're saying the same thing with the equation.
Idk why the conversation even needs to go here, but our concept of time has always depended on something changing. If nothing ever changed, time becomes almost nonexistent. We tell time by the movement of the sun, the ticking of a clock, even the oscillation of an atom; all this showing that time is a consequence, a measurement, of change.
Risible semantics. You have no shame John.
Micro and macro evolution are part of the same process of species evolution through natural selection, and whilst micro evolution involves small changes on shorter timescales macro evolution occurs at speciation and above on longer timescales. They're both scientific facts established with a weight of evidence beyond any REASONABLE scientific doubt.
Your objections are creationist propaganda nonsense, and therefore meaningless in a scientific context.
All you've done is repeat YOUR claim. I asked you to cite peer reviewed sources and quote the text from CB that support YOUR claim. Does Campbell's text say timescales are irrelevant to macro and micro evolution or does it say that they occur on different timescales? Does it say they are not part of the same process, species evolution through natural selection as you claimed but are different processes? Again quote where in CB the text says this.
Lying and misrepresenting what's been asked won't help, anymore than repetition if your claim will.
YOUR opinion doesn't change scientific fact. So unless you have something to support YOUR opinion then it's about as relevant as flat earthers sniggering at photos of the earth from space.
Sheldon,
In the case of "living fossils" we might have a case where microevolution has lasted longer than some cases of macroevolution. (If a creature is well matched to its environment it would presumably undergo only small changes in random directions since any large change would lead to a loss of fitness. And, if that match up between creature and environment hangs around for a long, long time then presumably we have a case of microevolution lasting a long time. Compare that to macroevolution whose changes are spread across the geologic column, mostly from the Cambrian on up. Almost any part of it (say, the divergence point of cats and dogs) would surely involve time scales much longer than typical microevolution.
Both microevolution and macroevolution, of course, have Darwin's natural selection as their main engine. Thus, admission of the truth of microevolution is tantamount to accepting macroevolution. The special mechanisms of macroevolution, such as environmental isolation, wide open niches, or retention of juvenile characteristics, are just tweaks that work with natural selection to produce new species, genera, etc.
"Both microevolution and macroevolution, of course, have Darwin's natural selection as their main engine."
I disagree that natural selection is an engine, because natural selection cannot produce anything. It seems clear to me, that if evolution is a vehicle, then mutations are the engine, and natural selection the breaks.
Also, accepting macroevolution is tantamount to accepting microevolution, not the other way around.
Breezy
You need to read about evolution because it is clear to me you do not understand the process. Selection, being natural or artificial, is what culls those organisms that are not adapted to the environment (for natural selection) or come close enough to the goals of the person selecting. while mutations offer the palette of options to choose from. It is irrelevant to discus about engines and breaks, the whole thing is an interlocked system. None of these processes by itself can lead to evolution. Without mutations there is nothing to select from and without selection there is no trend in the variation of genetic frequencies.
Now, microevolution is definitey the base of macroevolution, as it is the accumulation of smaller changes what causes a population to diverge from others of the given species, and so on until they create a new species, genus, etc. As I have repeated many times, as there is not way to stop changes to accumulate generation after generation, microevolution, given enough time, can produce new taxa. Until somebody can present a plausible biological mechanism to stop small changes to add up, or to happen at all, micro and macro evolution have to be considered one and the same process.
If you're going to say I don't understand the process, you need to offer more than a repackaging of what I said. Because if selection culls, then it is the breaks; if mutations produce the palette, then it is the engine; and if the whole thing is an interlocked system, then it is the vehicle.
No he doesn't, you're the one denying scientific facts here, so he can precisely tell you that you've not understood it.
You know you're denying these facts because in preference of your religious beliefs as well, or you'd have made some attempt to answer me when I have asked multiple times how many scientific facts you deny that don't in any way refute any part of your religious beliefs.
Of course anyone can see you're avoiding answering because your closed minded bias is impossible to hide in the answer, but the fact that you've ignored the question this long is of course demonstrating your subjective bias against evolution equally well, and that your bias is quite clearly based on your religious beliefs whether you have the integrity to admit it or not, and instead try to laughably pretend you have valid scientific objections. Objections that prove Darwin wrong, and provide a paradigm shift in our scientific knowledge that every other scientist on the planet has failed to notice in over 150 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny. Risible nonsense...
I am beginning to think I you also need to take a course on reading comprehension. I said that it is useless to discuss which part is the engine and which the brake in evolution. Both are needed. You may call them coffemaker and coffee grounds or whatever. The important thing is to understand that it is one process the creates the diversity in he natural world from races to orders.
"I am beginning to think I you also need to take a course on reading comprehension.
I've already taken an entire course on the psychology of language, with a special chapter dedicated on the mechanisms of comprehension; these mechanisms include the role of memory, mental models, heuristics for solving ambiguity, resolving anaphoric references, etc. Next year I'm taking a course on aphasia and communication disorders, which puts me in a position where I can analyze comprehension deficits in others. What courses have you taken, basic English 101?
I'm aware that you said it is useless, which is what makes your comment hypocritical when you repackaged and replaced my analogy with an even more abstract example: a culling the herd reference; a color palette reference; and an interlocked system reference?
P.S. The highlights in the attachment are not for you. Those are there from when I took the course.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Breezy:
Lets concede all these point to you and keep that engine and brake out of the discussion as I think it only muddles the waters. About my English, I am sorry, I know it is not very good. It is not my first language and I learned as and adult.
However, with all the studies you have done on comprehension and communication, I would have expected to be easier to communicate and keep the discussion in a clear path but I will keep trying.
To clarify your position and understand your reticence to reason about macroevolution, can you tell me:
"Do you believe there is a divine agent that directly created the diversity of nature (or as theists say "the different kinds of animals")?
Breezy:
Can you please, for the benefit of having a productive discussion answer my question?
"Do you believe there is a divine agent that directly created the diversity of nature (or as theists say "the different kinds of animals")?
I would really like to understand your position, and not have to assume it.
Careful John'll be crying to the mods that you're spamming. A new trick in his tool box of evasion.
Sheldon
I am an optimist. I choose to think the best of everyone so I guess that Breezy has just overlooked my question. I will keep reminding him to kindly answer it so we can proceed with the discussion. In a discussion, it is so important for clear communication and comprehension to know where each person is coming from! I know Breezy knows that too as he has studied so much about it that he will humour me and will answer soon and in an unequivocal way.
@ Aperez
I can only admire your optimism.
"I disagree that natural selection is an engine, because natural selection cannot produce anything. "
So what? Some people insist the world is flat, you're denying a scientific fact that is as well evidenced as the rotundity of the earth. Besides you cited Campbell's Biology text and now you're denying it. Your religious beliefs are not a basis for denying scientific facts.
"Also, accepting macroevolution is tantamount to accepting microevolution, not the other way around."
More dishonest semantics, they're part of the same process, and that is a scientific fact.
Mon, 04/30/2018 - 11:09
(Reply to #71)Permalink
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ
Timescales do not matter,
-----------------------------------------
This was your response (citing Campbell's Biology text) to my post that every text I'd read made the observation that macro and micro evolution were part of the same process on different timescales.
Now quote where the text says they're different processes (your claim) and not part of the same process of species evolution, and quote where it says they don't occur on different timescales. Then cite some peer reviewed texts to corroborate it.
Or stop trying to slither out of your claim with semantics.
Pages