When you say macro-evolution, what do you mean?

Darl
Posts: 31
Joined: 2006-07-12
User is offlineOffline
When you say macro-evolution, what do you mean?

Don't bash me too hard for this question, guys, haha. I am an athiest, and I do believe that evolution is the only credible explanation for life as we know it. My question lies in a lot of responses that talk about how there is lots of evidence for 'macro-evolution'. It was MY understanding that Macro-Evolution is simply a misconception. It is the result of many minute changes that over time. For example a fossil record of the human skull can differentiate between two skulls in very noticable ways over a million years, but without fossil records in between we simply fail to see the small changes in between skull A and skull B. I was under the belief that macro-evolution(in a benificiary way to survival, such as an elephant without a trunk, suddenly next generation BOOM, trunk!) was so mathematically improbable that it couldn't feasibly be used to explain evolution and that only by small, progressive steps could evolution truly work. So if you could enlighten me upon Macro-Evolution, or point out something I've missed, I'd appreciate it!


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
When you say macro-evolution, what do you mean?

I think what they are talking about is a difference between evolution in microorganisms and evolution in everything else.

It could also be evolution within species vs evolution of new species.

I dunno, it's hard to follow the train wreck of thought of the creationist.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
When you say macro-evolution, what do you mean?

I DON'T use the terms micro and macro evolution, it's a complete misnomer.

You'll ofter get a creationist or IDer telling you something like, "I accept microevolution within species, but not macroevolution or speciation".

Leaving aside the fact that the creationist no doubt does not understand what the term species means and that we have observed speciation, the creationist will NEVER explain to you what the magical mechanism that prevents microevolution from proceeding to the point where speciation occurs. Why exactly can't you travel a thousand miles one step at a time?

There is no need to split hairs with terms that don't actually represent reality. It is ALL evolution, people just like to make a stink about the matter of degree.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


madthumbs
madthumbs's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2006-08-06
User is offlineOffline
You guys should have a

You guys should have a better argument against religion than saying evolution is the ONLY alternative because macro-evolution doesn't even appeal to common sense. While atheists may believe that Christians are idiotic; Christians know that atheists are.

From: The 6 different meanings of Evolution [MOD NOTE: REMOVED SPAM]

***
"There are six different meanings of the word Evolution:

1. Cosmic Evolution: This would be the Big Bang theory. The school textbooks say that approx. 13 to 20 billion years ago something the size of a period on a page(a dot this . ) was spinning really fast and it exploded and here we are. Wow that must have been one heavy dot, who was holding it up? If the Big Bang is true then everything should be spinning the same way(conservation of angular momentum). Question: Why are at least 2(maybes 3) planets spinning backwards? Why are at least 6 of the 91 known moons spinning backwards(some of them orbiting their planet the wrong way)? Why are some Galaxies spinning backwards? The Big Bang theory is a dud and the scientists know it but the theory is sacred.

2. Stellar Evolution: The stars would have to evolve. Did you know there are enought stars out there that we can see that each person on Earth could personnal own 11 trillion of them each and yet no one has ever seen a star form. We see them die every now and then(average every 30 years or so) but nobody has ever seen a star being born(they see a spot getting brighter and they assume a star is being born but for all we know it could just be the dust clearing and there was a star behind it). Star births and star deaths should be equal. Did you know they have only found about 300 nova and super nova rings? If the universe is billions of years old there should be hundreds of millions of them.

3. Chemical Evolution: Hydrogen would have to evolve into all the 92+ elements of the Periodic Table. Problem is you can't answer this question with Star fusion because you can't get past Iron. Hydrogen turns into helium and helium turns into carbon(our sun will die at this point as it is too small) and carbon turns into nitrogen and that turns into oxygen and that becomes silicon and then finally that turns into iron.

4. Organic Evolution: How does non living matter become alive? True, scientists did try to create life in the lab(and was no where near creating life). In all the experiments they all left out oxygen(because it would oxidise with the other gases and destroy the experiment). One of the gases they used was ammonia but there is a problem with these experiments. Becuase there was no o-zone in the early air of Earth, that meant there was nothing to stop the UV rays(UV rays would have destoryed the ammonia anyway) of the sun hitting the Earth which would have destroyed any life being formed. Also you would need o-zone to stop the UV rays of the sun hitting the surface of the earth and since o-zone is made from oxygen you can't have life with oxygen and you can't have life starting with oxygen. Ah we have a chicken and egg problem here. Also if scientists did create life in the lab that would prove it takes intelligant life to create life. They would prove Creation wouldn't they. Very Happy

5. Macro Evolution: You would have to have 1 form of life turning into another form of life.

6. Micro Evolution: Variations within the kinds. There are a lot of varieties of dogs, little dogs, huge dogs, long dogs and short dogs, black haired dogs, yellowed haired dogs, white haired dogs, long haired dogs, short haired dogs, bald dogs, quiet dogs and noisy yappy dogs.

***

Even under a controlled environment; we cannot selectively breed a dog into a cat or a cat into a dog. They will still breed with their own, and distinguishing features will be lost after a few generations of breeding naturally with their own.

I've not seen an instance where a mutation involved a jump in the number of chromosomes of an offspring. This irrational idea would have to be met by a mutation in the opposite sex at the same exact time in history in the same precise place in the world. These offspring would have to breed exclusively with each other, and not be killed by their own or predators like chickens or a fox will do to a featherless chicken.

Furthermore; even single celled organisms are far too complex to just occure. Imagine discovering a world where no life forms ever existed, but yet a house with windows, stairs, roofing tiles, etc existed. Would you convince yourself that it just happened?

Video: [MOD NOTE: REMOVED SPAM. IF YOU WANT TO POST A VIDEO POST IT FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE SUCH AS YOUTUBE, GOOGLE VIDEO ETC.]

To point to evolution as the alternative belief to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. isn't the answer. These religions are easy enough to discredit, and using evolution (the oppo-extreme) will only make them scoff. Both evolution and religion also make good tools for racism.

We don't need to believe in evolution to not be suckers for religion.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Funny stuff

Funny stuff MadThumbs.

Considering your argument was cut and paste I wont be taking the time to put a rebuttal into my own words. Here is one link that points out the problems with the way you choose to define evolution:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/094353.htm

Additionally here is a youtube video, watching the first few minutes will yield a rebutal to your "6 definitions of evolution"

http://www.rationalresponders.com/critical_analysis_of_kent_hovinds_age_of_the_earth

Specifcally from 1 minute-3 minutes. Please take the time to watch it so you can see how dishonest the argument you just brought to the table is.

P.S. Feel free to scientifically prove that atheists are idiots, since you KNOW it to be true. Or is your evidence the voices in your head?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I won't resposnd to a hit

I won't resposnd to a hit and run cut and pasting, quite simply, it isn't worth my time and is unproductive. If you've got an issue you wish to actually discuss, let me know, madthumbs. What you have posted has been beaten to death already by myself and others in other venues.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Macrevolution is dogs

Macrevolution is dogs turning into lizards and stuff, so it clearly doesn't happen. I can't believe the evolutionists managed to trick the entire world into believing this nonsense!

Seriously though, the only distinction between "macro" and "micro" is that the former describes evolution on a slightly larger scale - above species. It is governed by the exact same mechanisms as "micro" evolution. However, there is no good reason to make distinctions between the two unless you're teaching a high school biology class.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Madthumbs, haven't we had

Madthumbs,

haven't we had this discussion before? Let me rephrase, haven't I schooled you on this discussion before?

on your favorite forum AN before you got banned?

No madthumbs your xtian anti-semitism, won't work here either.
Careful how you tread on this forum.

Do not troll here linking to your forum left and right...no one here is interested in your antisemitism or fallacious conspiracy theories.
I'm warning you, the minute I see you act up..you're banned.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


madthumbs
madthumbs's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2006-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Censoring in an argument is

Censoring in an argument is like cheating in a game.

I'm far from being a Christian, and I'd like to see you back up your accusation of me being an anti-semite.

Your friend Ry was discredited by his lies, and look how well he's doing now. You're taking the same path.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
How are you being censored?

How are you being censored? We removed the link to a website we don't wish to endorse, but otherwise left your cut and paste plagiarism in place.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Especially since it shows

Especially since it shows whoever thinks what he pasted has anything to do with actual evolution must be retarded. Typical strawman and non-sequitor shit. Fucking moron. Sad

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
madthumbs wrote:Censoring in

madthumbs wrote:
Censoring in an argument is like cheating in a game.

I'm far from being a Christian, and I'd like to see you back up your accusation of me being an anti-semite.

Your friend Ry was discredited by his lies, and look how well he's doing now. You're taking the same path.

Do not get started here, that's all I'm going to say. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. your anti-semitism is blatant. As with all those Joos Change profiles on myspace and what not..you are an anti-semite. I am giving you fair warning here. that's all. Feel free to discuss and write, but we (meaning myself and the whole administration of RRS) will not tolerate product placement in here. I'm just telling you to watch it. Feel free to debate, or post whatever you want, but the second I start seeing links to your site everywhere you are gone..this is FAIR warning, and not censorship. You want to discuss issues, go ahead.....just watch it.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


madthumbs
madthumbs's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2006-08-06
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry is a child

LeftofLarry is a child molester. His child molesting is blatant. As with all those child molesters Change profiles on myspace and what not.. you are a child molester. I'm going to give you fair warning here. that's all.

What a fucking DWEEB! I have pm if you had something to actually warn me about you dipshit! You're just resorting to libel and censorship because your stupid child molesting ass can't handle a debate! Sticking out tongue


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
WTF??? Talk about

WTF??? Talk about irrational! wtf


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
madthumbs wrote:LeftofLarry

madthumbs wrote:
LeftofLarry is a child molester. His child molesting is blatant. As with all those child molesters Change profiles on myspace and what not.. you are a child molester. I'm going to give you fair warning here. that's all.

What a fucking DWEEB! I have pm if you had something to actually warn me about you dipshit! You're just resorting to libel and censorship because your stupid child molesting ass can't handle a debate! :P

Strike 2......as I said fair warning. your debating skills suck by the way.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Liam_M
Liam_M's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-10-19
User is offlineOffline
Hahaha this thread is

Hahaha this thread is AWESOME!

Gooooo LeftofLarry!!


solidsquid
solidsquid's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
madthumbs wrote: 1. Cosmic

madthumbs wrote:
1. Cosmic Evolution: This would be the Big Bang theory. The school textbooks say that approx. 13 to 20 billion years ago something the size of a period on a page(a dot this . ) was spinning really fast and it exploded and here we are. Wow that must have been one heavy dot, who was holding it up? If the Big Bang is true then everything should be spinning the same way(conservation of angular momentum). Question: Why are at least 2(maybes 3) planets spinning backwards? Why are at least 6 of the 91 known moons spinning backwards(some of them orbiting their planet the wrong way)? Why are some Galaxies spinning backwards? The Big Bang theory is a dud and the scientists know it but the theory is sacred.

2. Stellar Evolution: The stars would have to evolve. Did you know there are enought stars out there that we can see that each person on Earth could personnal own 11 trillion of them each and yet no one has ever seen a star form. We see them die every now and then(average every 30 years or so) but nobody has ever seen a star being born(they see a spot getting brighter and they assume a star is being born but for all we know it could just be the dust clearing and there was a star behind it). Star births and star deaths should be equal. Did you know they have only found about 300 nova and super nova rings? If the universe is billions of years old there should be hundreds of millions of them.

3. Chemical Evolution: Hydrogen would have to evolve into all the 92+ elements of the Periodic Table. Problem is you can't answer this question with Star fusion because you can't get past Iron. Hydrogen turns into helium and helium turns into carbon(our sun will die at this point as it is too small) and carbon turns into nitrogen and that turns into oxygen and that becomes silicon and then finally that turns into iron.

4. Organic Evolution: How does non living matter become alive? True, scientists did try to create life in the lab(and was no where near creating life). In all the experiments they all left out oxygen(because it would oxidise with the other gases and destroy the experiment). One of the gases they used was ammonia but there is a problem with these experiments. Becuase there was no o-zone in the early air of Earth, that meant there was nothing to stop the UV rays(UV rays would have destoryed the ammonia anyway) of the sun hitting the Earth which would have destroyed any life being formed. Also you would need o-zone to stop the UV rays of the sun hitting the surface of the earth and since o-zone is made from oxygen you can't have life with oxygen and you can't have life starting with oxygen. Ah we have a chicken and egg problem here. Also if scientists did create life in the lab that would prove it takes intelligant life to create life. They would prove Creation wouldn't they. Very Happy

5. Macro Evolution: You would have to have 1 form of life turning into another form of life.

6. Micro Evolution: Variations within the kinds. There are a lot of varieties of dogs, little dogs, huge dogs, long dogs and short dogs, black haired dogs, yellowed haired dogs, white haired dogs, long haired dogs, short haired dogs, bald dogs, quiet dogs and noisy yappy dogs.

Ah, ye ole confusion of definitions. Evolution has several definitions. When someone refers to "stellar evolution", it is not the same thing as the ToE in biology. The evolutionary theory of biology is a specific theory and does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe, how stars form or even how life first arose.

Evolution (in the colloquial sense) is used to mean roughly "change over time". In a military context this involves many elements working together toward a common goal. Neither of these definitions applies to the scientific theory of evolution - context is important.

Quote:
Even under a controlled environment; we cannot selectively breed a dog into a cat or a cat into a dog. They will still breed with their own, and distinguishing features will be lost after a few generations of breeding naturally with their own.

You might want to review the concept of species and get away from the "kind" classification. You can have two organisms who are phenotypically very similar yet are different species.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
micro and macro evolution



his misconception is common. Microevolution and Macroevolution don’t mean anything. They are continuum references to the same function.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Clara Listensprechen
Clara Listensprechen's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry

LeftofLarry wrote:
Madthumbs, haven't we had this discussion before? Let me rephrase, haven't I schooled you on this discussion before? on your favorite forum AN before you got banned? No madthumbs your xtian anti-semitism, won't work here either. Careful how you tread on this forum. Do not troll here linking to your forum left and right...no one here is interested in your antisemitism ...

 

Methinks I detect an "atheist" who subscribes to the notion that Jews are a race; unless you mean by "antisemitism" that Madthumbs is anti-Arab, then you, sir, hold a religious belief despite whatever you might claim about being atheist.

Arabs are semitic.  Jews that claim to be exclusively semitic are the ones that believe that their religion = a race. 

I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible. {Michael Bakunin 1814-1876}


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Clara Listensprechen

Clara Listensprechen wrote:

LeftofLarry wrote:
Madthumbs, haven't we had this discussion before? Let me rephrase, haven't I schooled you on this discussion before? on your favorite forum AN before you got banned? No madthumbs your xtian anti-semitism, won't work here either. Careful how you tread on this forum. Do not troll here linking to your forum left and right...no one here is interested in your antisemitism ...

 

Methinks I detect an "atheist" who subscribes to the notion that Jews are a race; unless you mean by "antisemitism" that Madthumbs is anti-Arab, then you, sir, hold a religious belief despite whatever you might claim about being atheist.

Arabs are semitic. Jews that claim to be exclusively semitic are the ones that believe that their religion = a race.

 

so much as this really matters.... and I really don't know why I'm even spending time on this.  But I will clarify for clarifications sake....  what I mean by anti-semitism, is in the same sense that the Supreme Court defines Semites and in the same way that Alan Dershowitz, in his book "The Case for Israel" defines anti-semitism as "taking a trait or an action that is widespread if not universal, and blaming only the Jews for it."  The word anti-semitism today is rarely used for arabs, but is mainly used to describe jews.  Whether or not they consider themselves a race or not.  Frankly I can care less.  The fact of the matter here is that to hate a group of people fundamentally because of their "race" or "religion" or "lack thereof" is something I am opposed to.  I am "anti-hate".   

 
When I was talking to madthumbs, I was refering to his excruciating hatred for jews (which he has shown on myspace and through his forum), I have had encounters with him in the past.  I was not going to get into a semantic definition of the word anti-semitic, only because for this case, he in fact is an anti-semite (anti-jew).  I will criticize religion and I am a HUGE critic of the policies and politics of Israel and am anti-AIPAC.  However, I am not anti-jew/semite/fill in the blank here. And I do not appreciate or have any tolerance for anyone who will hate based on sex/race/religion.  But thanks for the history/linguistic lesson.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Clara Listensprechen
Clara Listensprechen's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
You're welcome; and the

You're welcome; and the Supreme Court is as in grave error about the definition of semitism/anti-semitism in that it makes the racist presumption that a religion is a race. It is not, and it never was.

Insofar as those terms continue to be used in their current erroneous racist definitions, they will remain reprehensible racist concepts nonetheless, regardless.

And insofar as these continue to be expressions of religious instituted racism, I will continue to point out such errors where ever they continue to be committed. You can count on it.

Rest assured that Arabs will continue to be semitic regardless.

I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible. {Michael Bakunin 1814-1876}