Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter Lost_At_Sea
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
Warthaug
Contributor
Completely, and utterly false. Evolution, within science, has one definition:
"a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage"
Generally the term "evolution" is used singularly to describe the process of biological evolution, while it is used compoundly to describe other processes - i.e. "stellar evolution", or "linguistic evolution".
No. Creationists like Hovind created, in their mind, their own little groupings. Then they pretend that they are real, and that they are somehow "scientific", and then go on from there.
No, we don't. As a biologist by training, and a scientist by profession, I can tell you that within the biological community the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" don't really exist. There is only one form of biological evolution; the terms "micro" and "macro" simply refer to a rather arbitrary amount that has occurred.
In the rare even that these terms are used in a a truly scientific context they have express definitions that are much more concrete than the wishy-washy version Hovind writes about:
Microevolution - evolution which results in changes below the species level - i.e. results in a change within a species, but dues not give rise to a new one.
Macroevolution - evolution which results in changes above the species level - i.e. evolution which gives rise to a new species, family, genera, kingdom, etc.
As pointed out before, within the scientific community there is only one definition of evolution, which is universally agreed upon, even across fields. The divisions Hovind writes about ARE NOT different version of the same thing, but rather are completely different process which happen to occur in a manner similar to evolution. The "divisions" of the science of "evolution" into his 6 categories is one purely of his own creation. THEY DO NOT EXIST IN SCIENCE AS THESE ARE ALL COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PHENOMENA.
He may as well be complaining that the term "off-side" is used in both soccer and hockey, and therefore it cannot exist because the two sports use the term differently.
Biologically, evolution can describe one of two things:
1) The process of evolution, or
2) The theory of evolution
Keep in mind that the theory simply explains why we see the process occur.
Completely, and utterly false. Macroevolution, as it is defined by the scientific community, was first observed in 1905 when de Vries observed the speciation of Oenothera lamarckiana into Oenothera gigas. Since then, speciation (i.e. macroevolution) has been observed over 2000 times, in every major grouping of organisms - archea, bacteria, plants, insects, and yes, even mammals.
-------
Edit: Forgot to point out that macroevolutionary events - speciation and whatnot, were observed and confirmed long before microevolution was observed. The reasion for this should be obvious - macroevolution = "big evolution", meaning its easy to see. Microevolution = "small evolution", meaning that unless you know what to look for it can be hard to find.
For example, the microevolutionary change of the pepper moths from typica to carbonaria (i.e. peppered to black) were first observed by Edleston in 1848, but the change wasn't positively identified as a microevolutionary event until Bernard Kettlewell analysis from 1952 to 1972. In contrast, over 200 speciation events (i.e. macroevolution) had been reported by 1952.
-------
We've observed it occurring in nature, and we've "forced" it in the lab.
Higher-order evolution (i.e. beyond speciation) has arguably also been observed, predominantly in bacteria and viruses. I say "arguably" because these divisions - even "species" - are very much a man-made creation that has little to do with how life actually works.
------
Edit: Forgot the "kinds" part. "Kinds" do not exist in evolutionary theory. "Kinds" are an ill-defined, vapid invention of the creationist movement which is so vaguely defined, arbitrary, and subject to change, as to be completely meaningless in any serious discussion of evolution. You can guaruntee that any article which uses the term "kinds" in anything but a derogatory manner is a piece of creationist BS, and completely devoid of facts. Kinda like Hovinds article that I've dissected here...
And since both have been observed, as well as microevolutionary changes leading to macroevolution (i.e. speciation), we know that the above is patently true.
Hovind likes to ignore those inconvenient facts, but that doesn't magically change the FACT that its happened; right in front of our eyes.
And the evidence for that is quite strong.
A total and utter lie, as described above. Macroevolution (which, btw, is not conventionally hyphenated when used in the scientific context) was observed for the first time 103 years ago. Its been observed at least 2000 times since then.
Likewise, the fossil record consists predominantly of macroevolutionary changes. Most microevolutionary changes aren't even things which would fossilize - changes in biochemistry, colouration, etc.
And since we've observed microevolutionary changes producing speciation, we know the above to be false.
Lets translate that to what it really means:
"Some people might believe that small variations add up to major changes, but no biblical evidence supports this. Therefore we must ignore the over 100 years of scientific data in which this very process, including the repeated observation of macroevolution, has been observed time and time again. And we must continue to ignore it until god himself comes down from heaven and says "let there be macroevolution". To keep us from looking like total morons we'll create our own definitions of what evolution are, and ignore what it actually is, and then complain that scientists don't actually study "evolution"..."
More importantly, university students need to learn to fact-check. Only by knowing where to find scientific information, and having the intelligence to critically analyze that data, can students learn to separate observable truth from fiction and imagination.
Hovind obviously missed all of that when he went to school - otherwise, how could he have managed to miss the 149 years of evidence supporting evolution, the 103 years of direct observation of macroevolution, the over 100,000 published scientific studies on evolution, or for that matter, be so very ignorant of the basic terminology used within the science?
But, of course, I'm sure you'll ignore all of the above. After all, a preacher with no scientific training must know more about evolution then the hundreds of thousands who've spent their entire adult life pursuing careers in the biological sciences...
Bryan
PS: In case anyone wants to look up the original de Vries paper in which he first identified speciation, the reference is:
de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
Oh, and then after you show your ass by using the works of an ultra-religious, racist, moron you edit your post to get rid of that stupidity and say you should have never gotten involved.
If you're going to share the views of morons, bigots, and liars, at least have the balls to stand by those views.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,790
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
It wasn't even the introduction of Hovind that did it for me, it was the introduction of Don "Bomb Islam's Holy Cities into the Stone Age" Boys' writings which attempt to validate Hovind that put me over the edge.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,790
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
You mean this guy ... here flogging what I guess is a bowel cleanser:
"When I first heard about this product, well frankly, I thought to myself 'this is probably just snake oil.' I was very suspicious. So I went out to Los Angeles and interviewed people who had used it, and looked at their medical histories, and I became a believer. Without a doubt, people are being helped."
Dr. Don Boys, PhD., Indiana-Former Member, House of Representatives, Columnist for USA Today- Bio/Tech News 1993
"When I first heard about this product, well frankly, I thought to myself 'this is probably just snake oil.' I was very suspicious. So I went out to Los Angeles and interviewed people who had used it, and looked at their medical histories, and I became a believer. Without a doubt, people are being helped."
Dr. Don Boys, PhD., Indiana-Former Member, House of Representatives, Columnist for USA Today- Bio/Tech News 1993
That's nothing compared to some of his other works of genius such as:
Stop Rewarding Bums Who Roam Our Streets
Vigilantes Deserve Our Cheers, Not Jeers
And
Don't Spend Money; Stop Sinners Instead
I'm sorry, but if anyone uses this moronic piece of trash as their source for information then I have zero respect for their opinions. I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm from the state where people actually elected this idiot to office.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,790
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
Hey, how about this one: Evolution: Basis for Racism!
I guess there was no racism prior to the publication of the Origin of Species.
Warthaug
Contributor
I guess no one ever pointed out to him that from a genetic/evolutionary point of view, races don't really exist.
There's simply too much gene flow for that.
Bryan
- Status
Similar threads
