Evolution is a lot of things to a lot of people. Darwin's theory of evolution is what most often comes to mind. At the same time, few people understand what it is that was actually proposed. Darwin proposed that all living creatures, and by extension, matter itself, had come from previous, simpler substances. He failed to address where this endless cycle began.
However, today there are various facets of evolution. One area in which people may become confused is when comparing macro evolution and micro evolution. Micro evolution can be observed today, while macro evolution is a theory that simply cannot be observed.
Micro evolution is the idea that all species experience mutations and can have genetic adaptations. However, micro evolution, as observed, shows that the mutations and adaptations only occur within a species. Each mutation and adaptation is designed and works to keep the species the same as itself.
In other words, when a dog mutates, it will change and adapt, and it will remain a dog. No matter how many adaptations and mutations occur, it will always remain a dog, and will never sprout wings or gills. All current mutations and adaptations observed fit into that category of evolution.
Macro evolution, on the other hand, says that adaptations and mutations exist, occur, and allow new species to form. This sort of evolution proposes that the DNA in individual animals and plants change from one creature to another -- from a dog to a bird, for example.
Macro evolution has never been observed in any way, shape, or form. However, when speaking of science in schools and teaching evolution, this is the type of evolution that is addressed. Darwin's theory of evolution is this type, and it is still taught in schools -- despite zero observation or true scientific evidence.
1
Not to mention all the hoaxes and lies in the theory that have been disproven. Good, simple explanation for such a complex subject.
Posted by: Jay at September 12, 2005 10:23 AM (2FcUc)
2
Thanks, Jay. I'm just trying to make a complex subject simple to understand to get people thinking.
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 10:49 AM (/k+l4)
3
Learn before you speak:
http://talkorigins.org
Posted by: coturnix at September 12, 2005 12:56 PM (I1kb9)
4
I have seen that site. Was there anything specific about it you wanted to point out?
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 01:00 PM (/k+l4)
5
Of course, Gravity is only a "theory" and has never been observed either.
Posted by: Denny Hix at September 12, 2005 01:05 PM (LQJdM)
6
Drop your keyboard, Denny, and tell me what you observe.
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 01:12 PM (/k+l4)
7
I think my favorite part of that site, coturnix, is where the author first claims that "Creationism fails to be a theory" because it's "not useful;" then declares that you can only refute the theory of evolution if "the evidence ... fits another theory better."
So in other words, he's making the rules and you're not allowed to disagree with them, no matter what might be reality or observed -- or, two is not a number, and I've decided that 1+1=5. You cannot claim I'm wrong unless you can come up with a better number.
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 01:26 PM (/k+l4)
8
Evolution is a theory and should be taught as a theory, not fact. However, I do believe that the theory of evolution is correct.
Posted by: Contagion at September 12, 2005 03:53 PM (Q5WxB)
9
And you have worded that correctly -- you can believe that theory if you like. Over the next few months, on a very irregular basis, I'll see if I can convince you otherwise.
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 03:56 PM (/k+l4)
10
You can try, however most people that have only ended up making me do more research to strengthen my oppinion.
Posted by: Contagion at September 12, 2005 04:23 PM (Q5WxB)
11
That's always the sign of a good debate -- and just keep in mind macro- vs. micro-evolution.
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 04:59 PM (iJFc9)
12
Who said anything about seperating the two, personally I think there is no difference. It's all part of the same process.
Posted by: Contagion at September 12, 2005 06:44 PM (e8b4J)
13
This sounds like it is going to be interesting. Can't wait to hear (see) more of your thoughts on this. BTW, I like the color separation of the comments.
Posted by: vw bug at September 12, 2005 07:06 PM (J3xJ9)
14
Well thanks! I experimented quite a bit before I settled on the alternating backgrounds.
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 07:23 PM (iJFc9)
15
If that's the case, Contagion, then I can agree that evolution does happen, and it is completely observed and tested. Of course, that's on the micro-evolution scale, as defined above.
Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 07:24 PM (iJFc9)
16
Right on about micro- vs. macro-evolution. I think my favorite example of evolutionary reasoning is from my college geology class. We were taught that "trilobite" fossils found in the "Ludicrous" layer were "450,000" years old because that is how old that layer was dated at. The funny thing is we were also taught that said "Ludicrous" layer was "450,000" years old because--yup, you guessed it--there were "trilobites" found in it. (Note: It may not have been trilobites and Ludicrous and 450,000 years ago--I remembered the fallacy, not the specifics.)
Needless to say, the "theory" of evolution is rife with shoddy science and half-baked ideas taught as absolute truth, not theory. To those who hold to evolution as dogma, I say: Fine, teach evolution if you must, but do teach it as theory, not fact, and present other theories from which people can draw their own conclusions. If you choose to deny the Bibical creation account, at least look into the intelligent design theory. There's a lot of very highly-respected scientists who, the more they learn about the universe and our own little planet, are finding themselves forced to admit intelligent design is a very real possibility.
A great book on this is "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.
As one songwriter put it, "It takes a lot of faith to say we're accidents of nature."
Posted by: nessili at September 12, 2005 11:05 PM (eItn5)
17
Thanks, Nessili! And even more interesting (at least to me) is the people who initially promoted that theory -- they had a specific agenda in mind and were predisposed to their own answer -- they refused to even consider any other possibility -- as many still do today.
Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 05:48 AM (iJFc9)
18
At the site I linked to above, go to FAQs. Choose the topics: "theory", "macroevolution" and others.
You are using the term "theory" incorrectly, as in "hunch", or "hypothesis", which is a colloquial way of useing the word, while in science it has a very specitific definition, that of a very large and well supported body of knowledge. Evolutionary theory is actually BETTER supported by evidence than the theory of gravity.
Difference between micro and macro evolution is quantitative, not qualitative, and a number of cases of what you call macroevolution have been observed both in the lab and in nature.
Posted by: coturnix at September 13, 2005 08:17 AM (I1kb9)
19
But that points to the site's claim I outlined above -- evolution is a theory that is supported by evidence, and no one can question that theory unless they have a better theory -- and then they claim intelligent design is not a theory.
That's like me telling you that I'm right unless you can prove me wrong, only you're not allowed to prove me wrong because you're wrong.
That site attempt to describe rules that define anything other than evolution as wrong, by definition. That's how people who support evolution normally support it -- everything else is automatically wrong and simply cannot be considered because evolution is right just because. That's a very weak argument.
And I would seriously love to see any example of any species mutating into another species. I've never heard of anything like that. When has a horse mutated into a dolphin?
Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 10:52 AM (/k+l4)
20
Well, i've seen an OGRE transform real times in para universe comes a cat like lightening connecting sole.
Questening misspelled...
who is that ...
a soft sound???/
no
it's analogin ;>
Posted by: ml at September 14, 2005 12:58 AM (kwO4l)
21
A sphincter says what?
Posted by: Ogre at September 14, 2005 05:59 AM (iJFc9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
