Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[AV1611VET]

You are very good at complaining but not so good at supporting your complaints.

You want pictures? videos? what?

Are you saying these things didn't happen for the reasons I stated?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thalidomide was a drug that was not sufficiently tested before going live. This is mainly an example of the evils of capitalism and greed not of science.

That's probably overstating it. It was a perfect storm of inadequate understanding (drugs weren't thought to affect the foetus through the placenta), inadequate regulation (there was no requirement to test with pregnancy or for tetarogenicity), unexpected drug behaviour (tested in vitro and in animal models it was fine, but in humans it was converted to its mirror isomer which was unexpectedly tetarogenic), hard to spot outcomes in small samples (a wide variety of teratogenic effects but only when taken in a particular 17 day period of pregnancy), and, of course, profit motive (which, aided by confirmation bias, delayed even further the admission of any problem).

It was one of those tragedies that led to the realisation that a wholesale re-evaluation of the field (drug development, testing, and regulation) was necessary.

 

[Speedwell]

I was addressing "carelessness" in science.

Nope, not that, either. For example, since hydrogen was discovered 1671 scientists have constantly been very careful to tell us that it is a dangerous explosive. It was engineers, not scientists, who decided to use hydrogen in the Hindenburg anyway.

 

[Direct Driver]

These are definitely terms used by scientists. They show up in textbooks on evolution.

That said, creationists seem to have their own private definitions of these terms which makes it confusing when they come up.

I'm sort of a creationist/evolutionist. That is, I think God created the different kinds, but I don't think evolution (of individual life forms) really is anything more than de-evolution. That is, I think God created the diversity and "de-evolution/mutation" is what has been happening ever since. I see "evolution" as the rust that happens to a '57 Chevy sitting in a field. i.e. It is deterioration. That rust didn't turn a '56 chevy into a '57 chevy. The designer and factory made it unique from a '56 chevy.

But I can't prove it. It's just my general belief. So micro evolution, to me, would be the rusting and deterioration of the car. Macro-evolution would be the release of the '57 Chevy when it was first built. And I believe that was not really evolution at all, but God creating it.

I like to use this example of why I don't buy "macro" evolution, again, using the car analogy. A 2000 Dodge Neon and a 2000 Chrysler 300M use the exact same door handles. It's not because one car evolved from the other. It is because they are both designed by the same doorhandle designer and come from the same source, and are used for the same function and customers, but on different cars.

So, just as you would expect cars from the same manufacturer using the same raw materials and the same subcontractors, made for the same purpose by the same human beings on the same roads to share a LOT of parts, you would expect to see the same thing in nature if it was created by a thinking personality. And we do. That doesn't mean any of them evolved from each other any more than the 300M evolved from a Neon.

But the fact is that I don't know. Nobody does. If I find out that everything evolved from a single initial cell that God created I'll say, "That's fascinating. Way to go, God!"

 

[Speedwell]

I'm sort of a creationist/evolutionist. That is, I think God created the different kinds, but I don't think evolution (of individual life forms) really is anything more than de-evolution. That is, I think God created the diversity and "de-evolution/mutation" is what has been happening ever since. I see "evolution" as the rust that happens to a '57 Chevy sitting in a field. i.e. It is deterioration. That rust didn't turn a '56 chevy into a '57 chevy. The designer and factory made it unique from a '56 chevy.

But I can't prove it. It's just my general belief. So micro evolution, to me, would be the rusting and deterioration of the car. Macro-evolution would be the release of the '57 Chevy when it was first built. And I believe that was not really evolution at all, but God creating it.

I like to use this example of why I don't buy "macro" evolution, again, using the car analogy. A 2000 Dodge Neon and a 2000 Chrysler 300M use the exact same door handles. It's not because one car evolved from the other. It is because they are both designed by the same doorhandle designer and come from the same source, and are used for the same function and customers, but on different cars.

So, just as you would expect cars from the same manufacturer using the same raw materials and the same subcontractors, made for the same purpose by the same human beings on the same roads to share a LOT of parts, you would expect to see the same thing in nature if it was created by a thinking personality. And we do. That doesn't mean any of them evolved from each other any more than the 300M evolved from a Neon.

But the fact is that I don't know. Nobody does. If I find out that everything evolved from a single initial cell that God created I'll say, "That's fascinating. Way to go, God!"

Right. But that does not address the substance of the pro-evolution argument, which is not that there are similar parts but that the pattern of distribution of similar parts is unlike that of human-used similar parts, but consistent with evolution.

 

[Direct Driver]

Right. But that does not address the substance of the pro-evolution argument, which is not that there are similar parts but that the pattern of distribution of similar parts is unlike that of human-used similar parts, but consistent with evolution.

Soooper. They were asking "creationists" what they meant by micro vs macro evolution. Now you know what I mean when I say it. I might be full of baloney, but then again, I might not.

 

[Astrid]

Soooper. They were asking "creationists" what they meant by micro vs macro evolution. Now you know what I mean when I say it. I might be full of baloney, but then again, I might not.

You are

But its ok, if I offered my understanding of American
football, say, I would as obviously be as ill informed.as you.
Imagine me in a post game wrapup, wondering why the
goalies weren't even there to try to stop the other team
making a basket.

Difference here though, is you seem to have detailrd opinions
on evolution, while I realize any opinion of mine on football
is worthless.

Another diff- football and my knowledge of is of no significance
in my life. But if I were betting on it, I'd want to inform myself.

Likewise- IF it matters whether God just poofed everything into
place, or, something else happened, then due diligence is called
for.

Right now you are at "football rink n baskets" level!
(Does it have those? )

 

[Direct Driver]

You are?

But its ok, if I offered my understanding of American
football, say, I would as obviously be gravely ill informed.
Imagine me in a post game wrapup, wondering why the
goalies weren't even there to try to stop the score.

Difference here though, is you seem to have detailrd opinions
on evolution, while I realize any opinion of mine on football
is worthless.

Oh, another diff- football and my knowledge of is of no significance
in my life. But if I were betting on it, I'd want to inform myself.

Likewise- IF it matters whether God just poofed everything into
place, or, something else happened, the due diligence is called
for.

Right now you are at "football rink n baskets" level!
(Does it have those? )

My opinion is far from detailed. I don't know a heck of a lot more than I do know. And that doesn't even begin to touch on what I don't know that I don't know.

But, more importantly, my opinion is far from "cast in stone". Kinda like your opinion on American Football.

 

[Astrid]

My opinion is far from detailed. I don't know a heck of a lot more than I do know. And that doesn't even begin to touch on what I don't know that I don't know.

But, more importantly, my opinion is far from "cast in stone". Kinda like your opinion on American Football.

Cool to hear you are willing to learn more.

Its actually a very interesting topic. Unlike football.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was engineers, not scientists, who decided to use hydrogen in the Hindenburg anyway.

Theology:

1. Goddidit
2. Falldidit
3. Flooddidit

Science:

1. Bigpharmacydidit
2. Governmentdidit
3. Engineersdidit

 

[Direct Driver]

Cool to hear you are willing to learn more.

Its actually a very interesting topic. Unlike football.

Well, I'm 67 and finally got electricity to my new 30x60 garage/shop/office. So I'll be focusing more on car repair and wood crafts from here on in. I'll let the kids focus on this stuff. I'm happy enjoying a sunrise with coffee and the occasional sunset with a nice scotch and cigar as I watch the deer wander by.

 

[Direct Driver]

Theology:

1. Goddidit
2. Falldidit
3. Flooddidit

Science:

1. Bigpharmacydidit
2. Governmentdidit
3. Engineersdidit

Beautiful! Your response fits your avatar.

 

[Frank Robert]

You want pictures? videos? what?

Are you saying these things didn't happen for the reasons I stated?

Let me repeat what I said previously.
"If you are saying that at times scientists make regrettable mistakes through carelessness, no one will disagree with you. On the other hand if you are claiming that carelessness is rampant throughout the science fields then you need to make a much more convincing case."

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I'm 67 and finally got electricity to my new 30x60 garage/shop/office. So I'll be focusing more on car repair and wood crafts from here on in. I'll let the kids focus on this stuff. I'm happy enjoying a sunrise with coffee and the occasional sunset with a nice scotch and cigar as I watch the deer wander by.

Can I drop by for an oil change?

 

[Astrid]

Well, I'm 67 and finally got electricity to my new 30x60 garage/shop/office. So I'll be focusing more on car repair and wood crafts from here on in. I'll let the kids focus on this stuff. I'm happy enjoying a sunrise with coffee and the occasional sunset with a nice scotch and cigar as I watch the deer wander by.

Car repair.
Another topic that is so not me.
Watching deer seems so nice..

I've a beautiful view of Repulse Bay from my
terrace, good place for tea and sunrise / set.
Not likely to see any wildlife bigger than the
geckos though.

 

[Direct Driver]

Can I drop by for an oil change?

Heh. Nope.

That building with the wood burning stove I installed sure beats working on my car in the lawn, though.

 

[Astrid]

Heh. Nope.

That building with the wood burning stove I installed sure beats working on my car in the lawn, though.

Ya want heat?
How about a trade..

We send all the hot humid air you want.
Cold clean air would be worth a lot here,
piped into buildings.

 

[Astrophile]

Nope, not that, either. For example, since hydrogen was discovered 1671 scientists have constantly been very careful to tell us that it is a dangerous explosive. It was engineers, not scientists, who decided to use hydrogen in the Hindenburg anyway.

The German engineers who built the Hindenburg knew perfectly well that hydrogen was dangerously explosive and that helium would have been safer. However, the only country that produced enough helium at the time was the United States, and they refused to sell it to the Germans for political reasons.

 

[Astrophile]

I'm sort of a creationist/evolutionist. That is, I think God created the different kinds, but I don't think evolution (of individual life forms) really is anything more than de-evolution. That is, I think God created the diversity and "de-evolution/mutation" is what has been happening ever since. I see "evolution" as the rust that happens to a '57 Chevy sitting in a field. i.e. It is deterioration. That rust didn't turn a '56 chevy into a '57 chevy. The designer and factory made it unique from a '56 chevy.

But I can't prove it. It's just my general belief. So micro evolution, to me, would be the rusting and deterioration of the car. Macro-evolution would be the release of the '57 Chevy when it was first built. And I believe that was not really evolution at all, but God creating it.

I like to use this example of why I don't buy "macro" evolution, again, using the car analogy. A 2000 Dodge Neon and a 2000 Chrysler 300M use the exact same door handles. It's not because one car evolved from the other. It is because they are both designed by the same doorhandle designer and come from the same source, and are used for the same function and customers, but on different cars.

So, just as you would expect cars from the same manufacturer using the same raw materials and the same subcontractors, made for the same purpose by the same human beings on the same roads to share a LOT of parts, you would expect to see the same thing in nature if it was created by a thinking personality. And we do. That doesn't mean any of them evolved from each other any more than the 300M evolved from a Neon.

But the fact is that I don't know. Nobody does. If I find out that everything evolved from a single initial cell that God created I'll say, "That's fascinating. Way to go, God!"

Do you really not understand the difference between the way a car is made and the way living things are made?

 

[Speedwell]

The German engineers who built the Hindenburg knew perfectly well that hydrogen was dangerously explosive and that helium would have been safer. However, the only country that produced enough helium at the time was the United States, and they refused to sell it to the Germans for political reasons.

Hydrogen is also more buoyant than helium, allowing a bigger payload--though the Hindenburg had been designed around helium before the embargo was imposed.