Mr. Wiggs is lumping multiple fields of science into a single theory. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is what is most often referred to in biology, is the not the same as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, or Earth's geological evolution. They're different topics of research found in quite different fields of science, and evidence for each topic varies. It does us no good to discuss evolution by natural selection alongside cosmic evolution.
his premise for lumping them together in this list is to point out the different types of evolution. they are all labeled as being a branch of evolution and he wanted to distinguish to the reader that simply using the term 'evolution' can cause friction when you don't understand which branch you are referring to.
I must have completely overlooked that one, because it doesn't seem to be implied anywhere. It seems he's merely setting himself up to attack on the micro vs macro point.
Continuing: You simply can't openly accept that microevolution occurs and then decline that macroevolution occurs. They're the exact same thing -- merely on a different time scale. The mechanisms for microevolution are precisely the same for macroevolution. Scientists break evolution into these categories so it's easier to study and research, not because they're different occurrences. Evolution by natural selection is evolution by natural selection; if you accept that evolution occurs by natural selection on a small scale, then given a large scale, it will continue to happen.
the definitions listed for micro and macro clearly have distinctions and are NOT the same(from the article)microevolution to the creationist is the limited variation that can be expressed by the genome of a “species’ or family of plants or animals. It is the variation in the alleles of a genome as they are expressed in sexual reproduction and the mixing of alleles that occurs. These alleles are mostly not the product of mutations, but rather reside in the total genome of a population. See the genetics section for a further treatment of alleles in a genome.
The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is billions of microevolution mutations in the genome, creating new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.
Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the ameoba to man evolution concept. Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no “mutations” in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment. The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.
Not to be rude, but I'm not interested in what microevolution and macroevolution are to the creationist. The words are quite readily defined by the scientific community in the event that they're used (which is somewhat rare if you speak to evolutionary biologists -- they rarely distinguish what "type" of evolution they're talking about, because they're only separated for research purposes).
To biologists, there is no difference between the two. In modern evolutionary synthesis, the two mechanisms operate at various scales to cause changes within species (micro) as well as speciation (macro), the only difference being time. You cannot say evolution occurs in one sentence and then say evolution doesn't occur in the next sentence. Evolution is evolution -- if it occurs, it occurs. If it doesn't, it doesn't. It can't be both ways. You can't accept that allopatric or peripatric isolation causes species to gradually change century after century, then say those changes aren't going to lead to those species not interbreeding anymore (speciation). The reason you can't say that is because we have watched it happen. If you accept that evolution occurs in the smaller time scale, it follows that these changes are going to stack and lead to changes at and above the species level. Again, we have watched it happen.
er well it's a scientific theory. Observable? We have observed evolution in nature and labs. Repeated experiments? Sure have. Falsifiability? Sure is. The challenge that evolution is unfalsifiable has been made countless times over the years and the theory has continuously passed the test. You can read of these examples at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_unfalsifiable
Lack real proof? The Peppered Moth in England during the Industrial Revolution. Microbial evolution -- antibiotic resistance, vaccine resistance, immune system resistance, superbugs, etc. Diane Dodd's experiment with fruit flies. Darwin's finches. European gulls. The list goes on and on.
the lack of proof referred to here is based on the lack of ability to observe and is referring to the evolutionists theories of the beginning of life and the history of the universe (not the observable and undenied facts of microevolution). the author (in my interpretation) was saying evolutionists use microevolution as a bluff for the validity and proof of evidence for the other branches. the history of the universe was not observable.
the peppered moth and the other things you mentioned are all examples of a species whose DNA was not added to but merely scrambled. they are examples of changes within a species but cannot be shoved into explaining the origins of life. and on top of the fact that the study on the peppered moth was already proven to have staged photos.
Now surely you can see the obvious point -- you don't have to be present for something to have a pretty damn good idea of how it went down. What you need is evidence...and it's there. (The argument is bad, so I won't take on the point beyond this: Who observed god(s) creating the universe? I guess it didn't happen?)
The biological Theory of Evolution makes no claims on Cosmic Evolution or how life began. Again, those are quite separate fields of research. It does no good to discuss them alongside the Theory of Evolution, it would merely cause confusion. If you want to discuss the other topics, I'd be happy to, but this isn't the thread for it.
There is no addition of DNA needed for speciation to occur. Speciation is mostly defined by reproductive isolation. I referenced Diane Dodd's experiment with fruit flies above -- Dodd took fruit flies from a single population, divided them into two groups, and applied allopatric speciation. She fed the two groups different diets (we'll call them Diet A and Diet B) and after many generations attempted to allow the two groups to breed. The two groups, however, did not breed -- the flies on Diet A bred with other flies on Diet A, and flies on Diet B bred with other flies on Diet B. No more interbreeding...speciation. Speciation is macroevolution.
Another example is in the plant genus Tragopogon, where two diploid parents produced a tetraploid offspring that could not longer reproduce with its parent species. Speciation. Macroevolution.
I could continue, but I suppose it doesn't make any difference how many examples are given.
As for the photos, they were not staged to prove the truth of the event. The backgrounds were merely made in a way to illustrate the crypsis of the moth morphs. Most photos of insects are staged because insects are small and very difficult to photograph well. Moths, in particular, are nearly impossible because they're sparse and, in this case, well camouflaged. The differences between the staged and unstaged photos are quite small anyway.
Everyone knows religious evangelists and church leaders around the world from various religions say some absolutely ridiculous, wacky, heinous nonsense. I wouldn't take what Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, or Pat Robertson says as the mindset or world view held by every Christian in the world. Likewise, it would be silly to take what Lewontin says here as the mindset of all scientists and proponents of science.
i wouldn't assume that one statement encompasses all of science opinion. however this is one statement out of many that have come from evolutionists that shows how they are only willing to think within the box of evolution.
Quote from http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/psych.shtml
The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it. What evolution lacks in facts, they more than make up for in psychology and manipulation. When an evolutionist enters into an argument where creation and evolution are in conflict, they frequently precede the debate by laying the groundwork by defining the parameters in which you are allowed to think. You are allowed to think freely as long as you think inside the evolutionary box. This box is defined on the premise that evolutionary origins must be true and our current state has been achieved through that evolutionary origin. Thinking is encouraged as long as it does not take you outside of this box. The box is defined by two supposed facts: our evolutionary origin and our current evolutionary state.
Well for one, as has been pointed out, Mr. Wiggs is guilty of the same thing he criticizes others of.
For two, this is just a silly take on the whole thing. If you ask an evolutionary biologist what he/she thinks of evolution, he/she is probably going to give you quite a definitive, perhaps authoritarian, answer. What exactly do you expect?
That would be like me walking up to a televangelist and asking him how he feels about the resurrection of Jesus. Then, when he replies in a way that makes his views unquestionable and authoritarian, I make the goofy claim that he's only capable of thinking inside the "Christianity box."
but i have to say thank you to all my non believing friends here because you challenged me to think and find truth for myself and take into consideration that my beliefs were wrong. so i did, i read your posts, i watched videos, i even went to the library and i went to PRO evolution and atheism websites and sources..... and i find evolution wanting, i find creationism to be more true to me now than it was before....in the words of George H. Smith in his speech ‘Atheism: The Case Against God’, "one has nothing to fear and everything to gain from the honest pursuit of truth. It can never be against your interest to know what the truth is."
I would expect nothing less. I don't care what you believe or don't believe. All I care is that people know and understand the facts and evidence if they intend to discuss a topic. They can do what they wish with that evidence. Hurts me none.
Community Forum
Topic: Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith (Read 18771 times)
January 27, 2010, 09:22:52 am
