Creationists: What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution

[Loudmouth]

I quoted a scientific article in a journal with an above average impact record, and it states the entymology of the word macro evolution:

let me repeat it:


"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level. In contrast to latter views, speciation was not seen as the crux of the distinction between micro- and macroevolution, since Filipchenko saw speciation as continuous with microevolutionary change"
above quote from :
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library


so when you say speciation is macro evolution, well thats not the way the original term defined it. So guess who changed it? Not Creationists! Evolutionists!

The definition has changed since it was introduced in the 1920's.

Speciation is macroevolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

here is a peer review that says otherwise:

Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library

I dont agree with all of it, but it proves the point.

not very many organisms exist precambrian. So where are all the transitions?

From that paper:

"Since all evolutionary change involves intraspecific modification and speciation, in a trivial sense, macroevolution could be reducible to microevolution. The novel associations of morphological characters and developmental processes recognized as phyla did not arise through some processes of “phylization,” but through speciation."

Speciation is what produces phyla, orders, families . . . and yes, even genera.

 

[createdtoworship]

From that paper:

"Since all evolutionary change involves intraspecific modification and speciation, in a trivial sense, macroevolution could be reducible to microevolution. The novel associations of morphological characters and developmental processes recognized as phyla did not arise through some processes of “phylization,” but through speciation."

Speciation is what produces phyla, orders, families . . . and yes, even genera.

he never says macro evolution is speciation alone. speciation is involved but notthe whole picture. secondly why are you quoting something you say was equivelent to "vanity". are you changing your tune once again? thats called changing the bars.

 

[createdtoworship]

The definition has changed since it was introduced in the 1920's.

Speciation is macroevolution.

so you admit to a changing definition. as you are proved wrong you change definitions accordingly. and that is why I respect the original coinage. athiests do the exact same thing with the term atheism. it doesnt work.

 

[Dizredux]

so you admit to a changing definition. as you are proved wrong you change definitions accordingly. and that is why I respect the original coinage. athiests do the ecact same thing with the term atheism. it doesnt work.

I hate to tell you this but neither you nor I get to define scientific terms. Scientists in the particular field are the ones who do and they define microevolution as change within a single species. They define macroevolution as speciation and above with speciation as the defining concept. In other words, when you have speciation, you have macroevolution.

You cannot disprove evolution by definitions nor by rhetoric, only with evidence.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

I hate to tell you this but neither you nor I get to define scientific terms. Scientists in the particular field are the ones who do and they define microevolution as change within a single species. They define macroevolution as speciation and above with speciation as the defining concept. In other words, when you have speciation, you have macroevolution.

You cannot disprove evolution by definitions nor by rhetoric, only with evidence.

Dizredux

so it's okay to change the bars as long as you are a scientist?

I await your response.

secondly, many scientists do not believe macro evolution is within a species, but above the level of species:

" the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"

also indiana university:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf

also some institutes of Biological Sciences:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

national evolution sythesis center:

https://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/

2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM
This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

 

[createdtoworship]

From that paper:

"Since all evolutionary change involves intraspecific modification and speciation, in a trivial sense, macroevolution could be reducible to microevolution. The novel associations of morphological characters and developmental processes recognized as phyla did not arise through some processes of “phylization,” but through speciation."

Speciation is what produces phyla, orders, families . . . and yes, even genera.

again I was re-reading this paper nothing indicates the He believes speciation is synonomous with macro evolution. on a "trivial" level they are the same, only because of the commonality of speciation. but Moreso on a micro level is it synonomous. Because macro evolution details things "greater than a species level" as I quoted from numerous universities on the matter in my last post.

 

[Damian79]

So what's the argument here, all modern life forms were created as they are now in the Cambrian era? Because we have tons of fossils from before that, and the fossils we have from that era aren't anything like the creatures we see today.

That's a problem for Darwin's evolution. because there are more diverse animals back then then there are now.

Given that Cambrian fossils are completely morphologically distinct from contemporary organisms, how would they have changed if they didn't evolve?

Creationists never argued that all evolution cannot happen it is the kind that goes from one kind of animal or whatever to another that we dispute. Basically we have no issue with mendellian genetics etc which you guys seems to lummp together with evolution.

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

I hate to tell you this but neither you nor I get to define scientific terms. Scientists in the particular field are the ones who do and they define microevolution as change within a single species. They define macroevolution as speciation and above with speciation as the defining concept. In other words, when you have speciation, you have macroevolution.

You cannot disprove evolution by definitions nor by rhetoric, only with evidence.

Grady

so it's okay to change the bars as long as you are a scientist?

Yep, their field, their rules.

Grady

secondly, many scientists do not believe macro evolution is within a species, but above the level of species:

the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...finition.shtml "Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"

Grady, this is what we have been trying to tell you. Microevolution is within a single species. Macro is above the level of an individual species. When speciation happens, there are then two species and that is when it is considered macroevolution. As long as the changes remain within a single species it is considered microevolution, above that macroevolution.

Above the level of species means above the level of a single species. After that there appears to be no limit to the number of times subsequent speciation can occur, all macroevolution.

Grady pretty much all in science agree that macroevolution is "at or above the level of species". There is no question about this and you seem to agree with it.

Wiki does a good job explaining the difference.

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.

This is the standard BSC (Basic Species Concept)definition of species. The Wiki article continues:

Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is about as clear as one can get it.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Dizredux Grady Yep, their field, their rules.

GradyGrady, this is what we have been trying to tell you. Microevolution is within a single species. Macro is above the level of an individual species. When speciation happens, there are then two species and that is when it is considered macroevolution. As long as the changes remain within a single species it is considered microevolution, above that macroevolution.

Above the level of species means above the level of a single species. After that there appears to be no limit to the number of times subsequent speciation can occur, all macroevolution.

Grady pretty much all in science agree that macroevolution is "at or above the level of species". There is no question about this and you seem to agree with it.

I understand what speciation is, thank you very much. We've been talking about this for months before you joined in. Still no answers from you guys. You need to prove that macroevolution is simply speciation. That is the thing. I quoted an original entymologically sound definition. And provided it in a legitimate article in a legitimate Journal. I don't agree with everything he states in the article but it does the job. We now now beyond a shadow of a doubt who coined the term macroevolution and why. Now if lying and changing definitions is somehow honest in your eyes, you need to prove why and how. My examples show a taxonomical difference of "above the level of species", now we all know that by reading above the level of species that it simply means "of a greater taxa". That is an obvious barrier to micro evolution, as speciation cannot attest to evolution between genra. This is what I have been asking for for 10 years. Now I understand the temptation to twist everything I say to make it work in your own eyes, but it simply doens't work that way. All we have to do is re read what was posted to see that it's not what was meant. But coming from someone who believes we can change definitions at a whim, I am not sure if I am talking over your head regarding being honest.

Wiki does a good job explaining the difference.
This is the standard BSC (Basic Species Concept)definition of species. The Wiki article continues: Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThat is about as clear as one can get it.

Dizredux

wiki has many errors, do you have any legitimate science sites. I honor you with true scientific sources, please do not patronize me with childish citations. The errors on Wikipedia make up a good percentage of the norm:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html

When speciation happens, there are then two species and that is when it is considered macroevolution.

it looks like the inventor of the modern taxonomy also views genus as
a type of barrier:

"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature
would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a
different
Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny
fishes are
provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be
contrary to
nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be
different from Rana and
the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all
the world of difference
between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "


Carl Linnaeus work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)
from

https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf

 

[Dizredux]

I understand what speciation is, thank you very much. We've been talking about this for months before you joined in. Still no answers from you guys. You need to prove that macroevolution is simply speciation. That is the thing. I quoted an original entymologically sound definition. And provided it in a legitimate article in a legitimate Journal. I don't agree with everything he states in the article but it does the job. We now now beyond a shadow of a doubt who coined the term macroevolution and why. Now if lying and changing definitions is somehow honest in your eyes, you need to prove why and how. My examples show a taxonomical difference of "above the level of species", now we all know that by reading above the level of species that it simply means "of a greater taxa". That is an obvious barrier to micro evolution, as speciation cannot attest to evolution between genra. This is what I have been asking for for 10 years. Now I understand the temptation to twist everything I say to make it work in your own eyes, but it simply doens't work that way. All we have to do is re read what was posted to see that it's not what was meant. But coming from someone who believes we can change definitions at a whim, I am not sure if I am talking over your head regarding being honest.

wiki has many errors, do you have any legitimate science sites. I honor you with true scientific sources, please do not patronize me with childish citations. The errors on Wikipedia make up a good percentage of the norm: Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Mail Online

Actually Wiki has a good reputation for science based material

The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.[4] Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology,[7] pharmaceuticals,[8] and psychiatry[9] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. According to a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology,

Wiki is not as accurate on articles on individuals.

I have heard this from more than one source but as you wish.


Grady, you have a bee in your bonnet on this and nothing on God's green earth will change your mind in any way. It is the world of science on one side of the macroevolution question and you on the other.

Again to quote from the Princess Bride, "As you wish"

Dizredux

 

[classicalhero]

Romans 1:18-25 perfectly explains why man refuses to worship a creator. Evolution is simply worship of nature under guise of science. Basically evolution states that nature did and all is nature, nothing different from the ancient pagan worship of nature.

 

[AV1611VET]

Romans 1:18-25 perfectly explains why man refuses to worship a creator. Evolution is simply worship of nature under guise of science. Basically evolution states that nature did and all is nature, nothing different from the ancient pagan worship of nature.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Romans 1:18-25 perfectly explains why man refuses to worship a creator. Evolution is simply worship of nature under guise of science. Basically evolution states that nature did and all is nature, nothing different from the ancient pagan worship of nature.

Jamming the word 'worship' in is where you are going wrong. The process of evolution is remarkable and fascinating but it isn't a process that one can look at without a certain amount of distaste for the waste and cruelty involved. Misnaming intellectual curiosity as worship seems nothing more than an attempt to smear those who are interested in a subject that, for whatever reason, you feel threatened by.

 

[bhsmte]

Jamming the word 'worship' in is where you are going wrong. The process of evolution is remarkable and fascinating but it isn't a process that one can look at without a certain amount of distaste for the waste and cruelty involved. Misnaming intellectual curiosity as worship seems nothing more than an attempt to smear those who are interested in a subject you feel threatened by.

Well, typical for fundie type Christians. They like to bring those who don't believe as they down to their level; science is a religion and those who worship science are evil. You know how it goes.

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually Wiki has a good reputation for science based material

I can't believe you are saying that science should be discussed using a site that adopts any and all authors to come and edit it's science at will. No degrees, no prescreening, no anything. If you want to change content, all you have to do is login. Now granted many who are uniformitarian by nature on the network may undo content change for little to no reason whatsoever. It still proves that point that wikipedia has no scientific authority.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html


Secondly, not only is Wikipedia edited and created by the public, with no degree necessary,

the edits are approved by a host of local members that moderate all edits, to undo them at will. IF one re-edits the post too many times, they are suspended for tampering. So one cannot undo the errors on Wikipedia readily, there is red tape and hindrance of free speech from other non decreed pseudo-professionals who come from a common sometimes outdated view of said thing in question.

Grady, you have a bee in your bonnet on this and nothing on God's green earth will change your mind in any way. It is the world of science on one side of the macroevolution question and you on the other.

Again to quote from the Princess Bride, "As you wish"

Dizredux

then why do all the scholarly articles agree with me, while one public generic site (wikipedia) agrees with you?

please take your time responding.

thank you for the comment.

 

[Heissonear]

Lies have different levels. Some obvious, some are deep. The best lie is one with 99% truth and but only 1% or less false on the key point. The best example is the one satan gave to Adam.

Evolution is such a system. One needs to be a good Christian scientist to see its problem. General public do not know how to argue by seeing the displayed facts. They can not tell facts from interpretations either. And most scientists are not Christian.

You believe in evolution. Because you can not see its problem.

Well stated.

 

[Gene2memE]

Right,
so the answers so far appear to be:

1. To preserve their jobs (which is actually an avoidance, as it sidesteps the question of how/why evolution and deep time became the prevailing norms);
2. People don't actually believe in evolution (or at least, a majority of Americans in 2007 believe that the Abrahamic God interfered with evolution or created man ex nihilo). Again, this sidesteps evolution by referring to only mankind (which most people put in a special category), not to plant/animal life as a whole;
3. Its the work of the devil to stop people believing in God (seems like an odd strategy, but I can dig it)
4. Man chooses to worship nature instead of God because ... reasons ... and evolution/deep time is this worship.

These don't really seem to answer what I was driving at.

The overwhelming majority of those who are actively engaged in research, teaching and publishing in biological and geological sciences, both in the general population and in academia, accept that the evidence points to evolution and deep time being factual (ie the explanations corresponding most closely to reality).

Why is it that these concepts are accepted, studied, modified, refined and taught as factual by the preponderance of the scientific community and educational institutions, while others such as special creation, theistic/guided evolution, intelligent design ect, are not?

Why is it that this is pretty much true across the world - or at least the developed world - regardless of culture, history and prevailing religion?

 

[RickG]

Romans 1:18-25 perfectly explains why man refuses to worship a creator. Evolution is simply worship of nature under guise of science. Basically evolution states that nature did and all is nature, nothing different from the ancient pagan worship of nature.

To not accept evolution as fact is one thing. To call it pagan worship, well, let's just say way overboard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lies have different levels. Some obvious, some are deep. The best lie is one with 99% truth and but only 1% or less false on the key point. The best example is the one satan gave to Adam.

Evolution is such a system. One needs to be a good Christian scientist to see its problem. General public do not know how to argue by seeing the displayed facts. They can not tell facts from interpretations either. And most scientists are not Christian.

You believe in evolution. Because you can not see its problem.

If evolution has these supposed problems why do all creationists fail to show any?

And what does the number of scientists that are Christians have to do with anything? That looks like an extremely weak attempt at an ad hominem attack. You need to remember that by many measures of morality atheists are more moral than Christians.