How old is the earth?

[DominusIesus]

You are probably confusing macroevolution either with common descent or with some non-scientific notion of macroevolution.

Certainly not beyond the realms of possibility.

I have read "Because it had not rained". I'll check for the others.

Futato's argument would be where I am at. I don't think that Gen 1 is historical, but rather a polemical cosmonogy.

Have you seen this by the Australian evangelical theologian, John Dickson?

I read through it quickly and I would agree with it in general, i.e. that is the general interpretive approach that I take.

The YECer who runs up to me arguing that yom means a 24 hour day will get my agreement, but I will point out to them that does not really prove anything.

Gordon Wenham (Genesis 1-15 in Word Biblical Commentaries) is a good read although he does not go into enough detail for my liking.

 

[Mallon]

Firstly, marcoevolution isn't a scientific term - it's only used by creationists.

You sure about that?

 

[Melethiel]

Firstly, marcoevolution isn't a scientific term - it's only used by creationists.

Weird, my basic Biology class definitely covered "macroevolution"...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You sure about that?

Weird, my basic Biology class definitely covered "macroevolution"...

I agree with Dr. Unk: the only time I've seen 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' used is by Creationists trying to refute evolution (and by Evolutionists rebutting said Creationists ).

Could someone point me to a biology textbook that uses the 'micro'/'macro' distinction in a non-Creationist context (i.e., not as a rebuttal)?

EDIT: Research (read: Wikipedia) has shown me the error of my ways. Apparently, 'macroevolution' is a serious biological notion. You live and learn.

 

[Mallon]

I agree with Dr. Unk: the only time I've seen 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' used is by Creationists trying to refute evolution (and by Evolutionists rebutting said Creationists ).

Could someone point me to a biology textbook that uses the 'micro'/'macro' distinction in a non-Creationist context (i.e., not as a rebuttal)?

EDIT: Research (read: Wikipedia) has shown me the error of my ways. Apparently, 'macroevolution' is a serious biological notion. You live and learn.

Yeah, macroevolution is used all over the place to denote change above the species level (read, for example, Robert Carroll's Paterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution). Thus, speciation is macroevolution. Neocreationists are often guilty, however, of changing the definition of the word to suit their agenda. To a neocreationist, macroevolution is defined as evolution above the level of a "kind" (and a "kind" is defined as the most inclusive group in which macroevolution does not take place. Round and round we go!).

 

[DominusIesus]

Out of interest, would you accept that Adam was an historical figure? Further, do you believe that a language could 'evolve' from nothing?

 

[beamishboy]

Out of interest, would you accept that Adam was an historical figure? Further, do you believe that a language could 'evolve' from nothing?

I know the answer to that one. Adam was not a historical figure. He was used to represent man. Adam means man in Hebrew. Also, in another part of the Bible, when "Adam" was used, a plural pronoun was used which denotes that Adam simply means human beings. I can't remember the exact verse but I'm sure I can find it if pressed.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Out of interest, would you accept that Adam was an historical figure? Further, do you believe that a language could 'evolve' from nothing?

No language, nor any other replicating system, evolves from 'nothing'. Evolution is the change in the traits of a population of replicators (in the case of language, the replicators are words, phrases, terms, idioms, etc, and a replication is an utterance thereof), and as such requires that a population exists in the first place.

I suppose the abiogenesis of language would be the same abiogenesis that kick-started biological evolution: as soon as sounds were being made, language slowly began emerged, albeit very crudely.

 

[DominusIesus]

No language, nor any other replicating system, evolves from 'nothing'. Evolution is the change in the traits of a population of replicators (in the case of language, the replicators are words, phrases, terms, idioms, etc, and a replication is an utterance thereof), and as such requires that a population exists in the first place.

I suppose the abiogenesis of language would be the same abiogenesis that kick-started biological evolution: as soon as sounds were being made, language slowly began emerged, albeit very crudely.

The point is that can the theory of evolution account for language.

 

[gluadys]

The point is that can the theory of evolution account for language.

Interestingly, the guru of universal grammar, Noam Chomsky, was doubtful that it could. But a new generation of linguists is more open to the evolution of language.

In The Language Instinct, Steve Pinker looks at the biological basis of language. And in The First Word, Christine Kenneally looks at non-human precursors to language.

 

[Melethiel]

Out of interest, would you accept that Adam was an historical figure? Further, do you believe that a language could 'evolve' from nothing?

That depends on the TE you ask. I, for example, do hold that Adam was a historical figure. As for the evolution of language, that's debated. It doesn't really matter to me - whether language evolved, or whether God taught Adam the first language, it doesn't really change anything.

 

[DominusIesus]

That depends on the TE you ask. I, for example, do hold that Adam was a historical figure. As for the evolution of language, that's debated. It doesn't really matter to me - whether language evolved, or whether God taught Adam the first language, it doesn't really change anything.

Re: languages; it is highly contested by many linguists as to whether language could actually evolve.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The point is that can the theory of evolution account for language.

Yes. The complexity of modern English (to take a random example) results from centuries of replication with variation: over the years, the meaning of a word subtly changes and grows. This is even more undeniable than common descent. Ever heard of the word 'gay'?

Re: languages; it is highly contested by many linguists as to whether language could actually evolve.

By whom, exactly?

 

[Assyrian]

As an aside, well almost, there is an interesting article on the National Geographic website
Migrating Birds Understand "Foreign Languages"

 

[gluadys]

Re: languages; it is highly contested by many linguists as to whether language could actually evolve.

By whom, exactly?

Chomskyites vs. Pinkerites.

The controversy is much like the ID vs TE one in which the Chomsky camp feels that language had to emerge as an irreducibly complex whole while Pinker, et al hold that the capacity for language could come about via evolutionary mechanisms.

A side-bar to this is the question of whether apes (Koko, Washoe, Kanzi) actually use language.

I have immense respect for Chomsky (no one who studies linguistics could fail to acknowledge his immense genius), but on this one, my money is on Pinker.

I should add that I don't think Chomsky is personally engaging in this controversy, but when he first proposed his thesis of a hard-wired universal grammar, he did opine that this could not have evolved in an incremental fashion. I suspect this says more about him not understanding evolution than it does about his understanding of linguistics.

Or simply, it could have been a premature assessment in the absence of evidence relating biology to language. Such evidence is starting to accumulate and point in a different direction.

 

[shernren]

I agree with Dr. Unk: the only time I've seen 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' used is by Creationists trying to refute evolution (and by Evolutionists rebutting said Creationists ).

Could someone point me to a biology textbook that uses the 'micro'/'macro' distinction in a non-Creationist context (i.e., not as a rebuttal)?

EDIT: Research (read: Wikipedia) has shown me the error of my ways. Apparently, 'macroevolution' is a serious biological notion. You live and learn.

A quick search of PubMed revealed:

Macroevolution via secondary endosymbiosis: a Neo-Goldschmidtian view of unicellular hopeful monsters and Darwin's primordial intermediate form.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Multiple ancient origins of neoteny in Lycidae (Coleoptera): consequences for ecology and macroevolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Biotic interactions and macroevolution: extensions and mismatches across scales and levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

[artybloke]

Since, the Bible as written by God,

No it wasn't.

 

[Dr. Unk]

Fair enough, I guess macroevolution is used sometimes, but it is a widely unpopular term.
The only significant event in evolution is speciation. Apart from this, there's no real way of separating micro from macro because macroevolution is simply many instances of microevolution.