Belief in Micro, But not Macro?

[mulimulix]

In my ever-continuing quest of finding everyone's opinion on religion, I found a Christian who fully accepts micro evolution (such as what goes on in viruses) but does not accept macro evolution (such as fish evolving [over a long period of time] into reptiles).

I do not understand how one can accept micro, without accepting macro. The fact of the matter is that micro evolution cannot be argued; viruses mutate all the time, this is why we will get the flu year after year. If viruses like the flu can evolve to continue infecting victims, this is natural selection, so why is it such a leap forward to say it works on a greater scale?

I'm particularly directing this at people (if there are any) that have this view, but I'm happy for others to discuss.

 

[seashale76]

In my ever-continuing quest of finding everyone's opinion on religion, I found a Christian who fully accepts micro evolution (such as what goes on in viruses) but does not accept macro evolution (such as fish evolving [over a long period of time] into reptiles).

I do not understand how one can accept micro, without accepting macro. The fact of the matter is that micro evolution cannot be argued; viruses mutate all the time, this is why we will get the flu year after year. If viruses like the flu can evolve to continue infecting victims, this is natural selection, so why is it such a leap forward to say it works on a greater scale?

I'm particularly directing this at people (if there are any) that have this view, but I'm happy for others to discuss.

I'd say this is a fairly common position among some Christians, actually. You really answered your own question, I think. Micro evolution cannot be argued. Macro is still a theory, so it is arguable. Just as you don't accept the existence of God, it is the same with people who will not accept macro evolution until being hit with the irrefutable evidence to their particular standards of satisfaction stick.

My last strongly held position was theistic evolution. As to how I personally feel about things now, I couldn't care less. Theistic evolution, or OEC, or YEC- has become a non-issue. I'm agnostic about it, as it has nothing to do with what is important.

 

[mulimulix]

I'd say this is a fairly common position among some Christians, actually. You really answered your own question, I think. Micro evolution cannot be argued. Macro is still a theory, so it is arguable. Just as you don't accept the existence of God, it is the same with people who will not accept macro evolution until being hit with the irrefutable evidence to their particular standards of satisfaction stick.

Micro evolution is also a theory, just like the round earth theory and the theory of gravity, but I trust you believe in those two things. A theory doesn't just mean its speculated, a theory is the furthest any hypothesis can get in the scientific method. Nothing is a fact in science.

But the point I originally asked was why it is such a big step to go from accepting micro evolution to accepting macro evolution.

 

[seashale76]

Micro evolution is also a theory, just like the round earth theory and the theory of gravity, but I trust you believe in those two things. A theory doesn't just mean its speculated, a theory is the furthest any hypothesis can get in the scientific method. Nothing is a fact in science.

But the point I originally asked was why it is such a big step to go from accepting micro evolution to accepting macro evolution.

Yes, thank you. I know.

It is a more tenable theory as it is actually observable. The other has yet to even be observable- it is just speculated upon- unless things have changed drastically since my undergraduate days in anthropology. I was never convinced of it even after sitting through an entire semester of Human Biological and Cultural Evolution. It doesn't matter to me if you believe it or not. Whatever the case- I believe God was involved.

 

[salida]

Well, this christian believes in microevolution because it can be observed. I did a project in college concerning the size of birds beaks versus the size of nuts they ate; its been so long ago but it was a fun project.

I do believe in macroevolution if the species stays within its family-like the canine family, the cat family,etc. There has been no observable evidence other than this. My professor taught this and I agree with him here.

 

[Sketcher]

Micro does not depend on macro, but macro depends on micro. That's got something to do with it.

There's also a pretty huge difference between a bacteria mutating to withstand modern antibiotics and a dinosaur mutating into a bird. The latter is not only much more complex, but it can't really be observed. It can be hypothesized and believed in (atheists do have faith in some things) but you can't really go any further than that.

 

[razeontherock]

+1 w/ Sketcher there. Then there's the whole flood thing. Take what He actually said, and it's feasible. This would rely heavily on Ev up to the family. If that story isn't literally true it's not consequential, but it does get harder to understand.

I still ask, and have never gotten an answer:

how many generations of simple micro-organisms have we had under laboratory observance, and a virus is still a virus?

 

[mulimulix]

Well, this christian believes in microevolution because it can be observed. I did a project in college concerning the size of birds beaks versus the size of nuts they ate; its been so long ago but it was a fun project.

I do believe in macroevolution if the species stays within its family-like the canine family, the cat family,etc. There has been no observable evidence other than this. My professor taught this and I agree with him here.

So what you are saying is that if something cannot be observed, it cannot be proven?

Micro does not depend on macro, but macro depends on micro. That's got something to do with it.

There's also a pretty huge difference between a bacteria mutating to withstand modern antibiotics and a dinosaur mutating into a bird. The latter is not only much more complex, but it can't really be observed. It can be hypothesized and believed in (atheists do have faith in some things) but you can't really go any further than that.

Of course there is a huge difference in the above example, but that doesn't mean it never happened; they are both founded upon the same principle. The principle is that an organism obtains a mutation which benefits is, and over time, the species obtains that mutation. When reptiles evolved to have feathers, they could cope better with cooler temperatures as the Earth cooled, and so on...

I still ask, and have never gotten an answer:

how many generations of simple micro-organisms have we had under laboratory observance, and a virus is still a virus?

Microbiology isn't really that old. It only began in the second half of the 19th century, and it's not like we've observed every species of virus under the microscope; not even close. Out of the viruses we have observed, there have been significant changes in them which have been very beneficial to the species, even in recent times. The problem with this argument is that there is no fine line in when a mutated species becomes a new species. If humans were to evolve in a few thousand years to have a third arm (as a loose example), does this mean we should not be labeled homo-sapien?

 

[Sketcher]

Of course there is a huge difference in the above example, but that doesn't mean it never happened; they are both founded upon the same principle. The principle is that an organism obtains a mutation which benefits is, and over time, the species obtains that mutation. When reptiles evolved to have feathers, they could cope better with cooler temperatures as the Earth cooled, and so on...

That doesn't mean that it didn't happen, but at the same time that doesn't prove that it did. Yes, macro builds on micro and micro is proven, but at the same time that is not proof that macro in the sense that dinosaurs turned into birds happened. If you're going to say that A evolved into Z, you need more than the idea that it could happen, you need to prove that it actually happened. You need conclusive evidence that people can examine. Otherwise, you're just taking a leap of faith. Now, I'm prepared to say that there are things that I as a Christian, take on faith. The question for you is, as an atheist, are you ready to make the same admission?

 

[Key]

In my ever-continuing quest of finding everyone's opinion on religion, I found a Christian who fully accepts micro evolution (such as what goes on in viruses) but does not accept macro evolution (such as fish evolving [over a long period of time] into reptiles).

I do not understand how one can accept micro, without accepting macro. The fact of the matter is that micro evolution cannot be argued; viruses mutate all the time, this is why we will get the flu year after year. If viruses like the flu can evolve to continue infecting victims, this is natural selection, so why is it such a leap forward to say it works on a greater scale?

That's the rub, we have tried and tested it, and it does not work on larger scales.

Let me put this another way. Anyone who knows anything about science at all, knows that physical science like Physics, (and every field of science for that matter) when the scale changes, so do the rules. Which is why we Astrophysics, Quantum Physics, etc, because, as size and scale change, the dynamic of interaction change with it.

Knowing this, it would be completely naive to think that if something works on scale, it will work on another especially when it involves something as mutable and random as biology.

Currently however, we have proven with fruit flies that Macro does not work on a larger scale, so there is no reason to even entertain that evolutionary process can do anything more then the confines of Micro mutations within limit.

And before you say time is a factor, we have tests that have spanned well over a thousand years involving a vast array of animals, and so far, while we can do a great amount of variety on a theme within a theme, but nothing beyond that, and we have a lot showing us that we can't go beyond that.

For example, Fruit Flies die to what we can only guess is too much genetic mutation (They become genetic goo apparently) when we tried to breed away their legs, or breed in extra legs. There seems to be a rock solid line that says "variant s to a point" and knowing that, I have every reason to use Micro as a tool, and every motive to hold Macro as false, a pipe dream, wishful thinking.

I'll change my stand when I see solid evidence, not fairy tails and funny stories.

God Bless

 

[Key]

So what you are saying is that if something cannot be observed, it cannot be proven?

I get this all the time as a Christian, people asking me to prove God and the requirement is that they meet god and observe him.

Welcome to life kid.

Of course there is a huge difference in the above example, but that doesn't mean it never happened; they are both founded upon the same principle. The principle is that an organism obtains a mutation which benefits is, and over time, the species obtains that mutation. When reptiles evolved to have feathers, they could cope better with cooler temperatures as the Earth cooled, and so on...

You have this backwards, totally backwards.

Microbiology isn't really that old. It only began in the second half of the 19th century, and it's not like we've observed every species of virus under the microscope; not even close.

Dude, microbiology has been around since the 1800's, when we argued and disproved spontaneous generation in 1862. So it's not "new" at all. In fact, the study of micro biology can be traced back to before the mid 1600's, Life coming from unlife was first debunked.

Why people cling to Abiogenesis today, when it was debunked well over a hundred years ago, I'll never get, Never.

God Bless.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Maybe because abiogenesis is not so simple as what many boil it down to being what it used to be. The original primordial soup theory might've been debunked, but scientists are hardly discouraged if one hypothesis has been torn down. It just means they need to focus on a different area of the problem. The clay hypothesis comes to mind, as well as the RNA world hypothesis.

 

[mulimulix]

I get this all the time as a Christian, people asking me to prove God and the requirement is that they meet god and observe him.

Welcome to life kid.



You have this backwards, totally backwards.



Dude, microbiology has been around since the 1800's, when we argued and disproved spontaneous generation in 1862. So it's not "new" at all. In fact, the study of micro biology can be traced back to before the mid 1600's, Life coming from unlife was first debunked.

Why people cling to Abiogenesis today, when it was debunked well over a hundred years ago, I'll never get, Never.

God Bless.

I fail to see how abiogenesis was debunked. Have you ever read about the miller-urey experiment? If not, check out the wiki page.

 

[razeontherock]

Miller created death, not life. Greatest hoax perpetrated on US schools.

 

[Assyrian]

Like in Terry Pratchett?

 

[mulimulix]

Miller created death, not life. Greatest hoax perpetrated on US schools.

go on...please explain how it is a hoax.

Btw, I have to commend you for making over 5000 posts in only 6 months. That's crazy

 

[Key]

Maybe because abiogenesis is not so simple as what many boil it down to being what it used to be. The original primordial soup theory might've been debunked, but scientists are hardly discouraged if one hypothesis has been torn down as long as it in the quest to disprove God. It just means they need to focus on a different area of the problem. The clay hypothesis comes to mind, as well as the RNA world hypothesis.

Fixed that for you.

God Bless

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I don't paint you all with a broad brush as if you all hold hatred towards non Christians or even a sense of elitism, so you're hardly being civil if you paint scientists with such a broad brush, especially considering that scientists can be Christian in their convictions of faith matters without necessarily affecting their scientific convictions as well.

I doubt you'd deny this, so honestly, your lashing out is just proving my point implicitly. I never stated there was some absolute conflict between science and religion, you bring it up just to be a contrarian, it appears. Can we just chill a bit and discuss this, and I must emphasize this, civilly?

 

[Key]

I fail to see how abiogenesis was debunked. Have you ever read about the miller-urey experiment? If not, check out the wiki page.

Oh.. you mean This Guy?

Yah, again. The quest to disprove God seems to be endless, undaunted in the face of endless defeat and stalemates, they continue on to spread their deceptions and try to pass off fictional-pseudoscience as the real deal.

Which is just one of the many motives why I don't trust Macro, and won't even entrain it unless something concrete comes along.

Too much smoke and mirrors on the Naturalist side not to be highly skeptical of them and their tactics.

God Bless

 

[Key]

I don't paint you all with a broad brush as if you all hold hatred towards non Christians or even a sense of elitism

My lack of respect for the "Scientific Community" started with Piltdown man, and it has not improved as it seems the same tired and weak tactics and mindset continue among them.

If they spent a quarter the time looking at Piltdown man as they did on the Paluxy river tracks, I would have respected them, but they didn't and the only reason why, is because of religious prejudiced.

so you're hardly being civil if you paint scientists with such a broad brush

Excuse me, didn't you posses the audacity to tell me how to follow my own religion?

Now, unless motivated by a need to peruse some naturalist ideal in a vain quest to disprove God, why are these "Scientist" continuing to try to find something that after well over a hundred years of searching has tuned up Nill.

Any rational person would have seen the light and realized, it just was not going to happen by it's own, it's not going to be some naturally occurring event.

Which is funny, because I hear constantly, that life is this complex thing that is highly details, and yet out of the same lip and same breath I hear that it could just happen of it's own accord.

I worked in engineering for over 10 years, and the reality of life does not work like that, you can't have it both ways. Either it is so simple that is can happen on it's own and this can be recreated easily enough, or it is too complex to fabricate by any means we have available to us, which means it can't just happen of it's own.

But it is the dance around and deception and two faces songs that I hear constantly that picks at any respect I might posses for the people that entertain these fictional delusions, and while I would have more respect for them if they just openly admitted that this was not scientific, that it was just some emotionally driven faith based belief that was founded on wishful desires and anything actual then the total lies they feed people about it being scientific.

In fact, it is the Christians that challenge these lies, and here is what burns me. Even after real scientist debunk them, the lies continue.

Which again, is why, until concrete observable evidence is put in my lap, I have heard too many lies and half truths to not be a hard core skeptic.

and the only way to change that is by doing what they are supposed to be doing to begin with, use real science.

*added: Which is why I fully embrace Micro, as I can and have observed it, and why Macro is as far as I will entertain it (until concrete evidence is presented) a anti-religious pipe dream.

God Bless