Is Macroevolution a misnomer?

[WhiteMageGirl]

If they don't deal in real answers then would it not be something like:

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = i

?

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = i

is a real answer, just not completely simplified.

 

[FishFace]

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = i

is a real answer, just not completely simplified.

Eh... you can't simplify i any further...

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

Eh... you can't simplify i any further...

Yes you can because i is equal to 1+1+1+1+1 which happens to be 5, since i equals 5, you can represent i with 5.

 

[FishFace]

Yes you can because i is equal to 1+1+1+1+1 which happens to be 5, since i equals 5, you can represent i with 5.

I can't tell whether you're kidding me or not, but if you aren't here's an opportunity to learn about i.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

I can't tell whether you're kidding me or not, but if you aren't here's an opportunity to learn about i.

Oh haha, I didn't realize you were talking about complex numbers. It's been a while since I've seen that stuff. Didn't catch it.

 

[gamespotter10]

Hearing ID'ers make arguments against evolution, it is often stated that they acknowledge microevolution (described as evolutionary changes within a species), but that 'no one has ever witnessed macroevolution'.

Is Macroevolution even a meaningful term? They acknowledge the numerous changes within a species over long periods of time, yet they deny that any change ever leads to a new species. Isn't it really a question of where you draw the line, so to speak?

Eventually, only after numerous tiny changes do you have something so vastly different that it's a new species, so wouldn't it be impossible to even state that there is such a thing as Macroevolution, since it merely appears to be a term used to corral all of the Microevolution that has taken place?

So really, there ISN'T any 'big leap' in itself that could be considered Macroevolution, thereby making the argument a smokescreen. Further, since these changes are FAR outside the span of a lifetime, then the 'no one has ever witnessed macroevolution' would also be an illogical statement.

Am I on the right track here?


Btodd

we actually have seen macroevolution. that is a common argument used by creationists, but it simply isn't true. take for example the culex molestus. Its a type of mosquito. we've seen it evolve from the culex pipeins. we've seen macroevolution, dont kid yourself

 

[Btodd]

we actually have seen macroevolution. that is a common argument used by creationists, but it simply isn't true. take for example the culex molestus. Its a type of mosquito. we've seen it evolve from the culex pipeins. we've seen macroevolution, dont kid yourself

Gamespotter, I'm not debating the validity of macroevolution, but merely the misuse of it by the Intelligent Design movement.


Btodd

 

[MarcusHill]

The definition of macroevolution by IDists seems to be "evolution at any level we have not observed". Clearly, we've never observed macroevolution.

 

[The Bellman]

The definition of macroevolution by IDists seems to be "evolution at any level we have not observed". Clearly, we've never observed macroevolution.

I think the above is excellently put. Note that using this definition, not only have we never observed macroevolution, we never can. This makes it particularly useful for creationists; the "we've never seen macroevolution" line works forever!

 

[BVZ]

The definition of macroevolution by IDists seems to be "evolution at any level we have not observed". Clearly, we've never observed macroevolution.

Thats brilliant. Reps for you.

 

[gamespotter10]

Hearing ID'ers make arguments against evolution, it is often stated that they acknowledge microevolution (described as evolutionary changes within a species), but that 'no one has ever witnessed macroevolution'.

Is Macroevolution even a meaningful term? They acknowledge the numerous changes within a species over long periods of time, yet they deny that any change ever leads to a new species. Isn't it really a question of where you draw the line, so to speak?

Eventually, only after numerous tiny changes do you have something so vastly different that it's a new species, so wouldn't it be impossible to even state that there is such a thing as Macroevolution, since it merely appears to be a term used to corral all of the Microevolution that has taken place?

So really, there ISN'T any 'big leap' in itself that could be considered Macroevolution, thereby making the argument a smokescreen. Further, since these changes are FAR outside the span of a lifetime, then the 'no one has ever witnessed macroevolution' would also be an illogical statement.

Am I on the right track here?


Btodd

we have directly observed macroevolution in mosquitoes. creationists will say "oh, that's just one living thing changing into another part of its kind" well, there is no such thing as "kind".
also, bear in mind that the DNA of all living things is extremely similar. ALL living things use the same exact 4 base pairs in their DNA. the only reasonable, logical, and scientific explanation for this phenomenon is the theory of common decent, which postulates that all living things are geneologically related and share a common ancestor

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The scientifically relevant distinction between micro and macro evolution is one of approach. There are numerous examples in science where understanding of a system is gained through reductionism (small scale or component parts) as opposed to holisticism (large scale or the system as a whole). A biochemist and a zoologist can look at the same species, one looks at a unique intracellular function while the other studies behavior and organ function. Both approaches are central to understanding the species.