- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
31 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYes, but how can the creationists ignore the geological evidence?
With apologies to RC.
I know this was addressed to Mark, but something about it bothered me all night. I woke up this morning with a sudden understanding.
First. I withdraw my apology to you IvanH. I regret the apology very much ...[text shortened]... ry. If I offend IvanH... Good! You deserve that and worse.
Mike
01 Sep 03
Originally posted by iamatigerTypically they do not ignore the geological evidence. Rather, they tend to argue either that what we take to be geological evidence tacitly relies upon the very hypothesis at issue, namely that the earth is billions of years old, or they argue that the body of geological evidence has crucial holes and contradictions within it.
Yes, but how can the creationists ignore the geological evidence?
05 Sep 03
Originally posted by genius
well, everything in the bible, save the first few chapters of genisis, have been proven to be true... problems with translations? well, the dead sea scrolls were extrairdinarilly accurate compared to recent translations.
mmanuel-you might not understand how people can belevie this stuff. personally, i can't understand why people cannot...
I hear ya!
06 Sep 03
2 edits
Maybe I am confused on the terminology. Does the definition for microevolution state that after the evolution there has to be a new species or is the species just changed? I was just pointing out that there is proof for microevolution, not that there is proof for macroevolution ...[text shortened]... ies has to microevolve before it is considered to have macroevolved.I'm pretty confused by the terminology too. I've done a fair bit of reading about evolution, and I've certainly never come across any micro or macro forms.
Evolution is a process, by which natural selection acts on genetic variation, and what's more it's a process which is absolutely fundamental to our understanding of every aspect of biology - from biochemistry to ecology to, of course, inheritance.
Dividing evolution into 'mico' and 'macro' just doesn't work. If you accept that the process can occur, then logically you should accept both, since the only difference is that macroevolution as it has been defined would take rather longer to occur.
I often feel people find it hard to accept evolution because they fail to conceive of the length of time over which it is operating. Yes it's hard to accept that such a seemingly random process should have brought about creatures as complex as ourselves, but an awful lot can happen in 3 billion years.
06 Sep 03
" ... such a seemingly random process ..." richjoeyi
I often feel people find it hard to accept evolution because they fail to conceive of the length of time over which it is operating. Yes it's hard to accept that such a seemingly random process should have brought about creatures as complex as ourselves, but an awful lot can happen in 3 billion years. richjoeyi
Now isn't this one of the more interesting questions in evolution theory. As far as I am concerned this is a key question in the debate.
Is the process of evolution a truly random process or not ?
Is there any substantial evidence within the theory itself to support the one or the other, or does the theory just assumes it is a random process because it appears to be this way or because it is obvious or because it is more or less convenient to assume this ?
Joe
07 Sep 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat's a good question. Some elements of evolution are random - for instance the mutational events that create genetic variation. Natural selection is to some degree predictable, but even here there's a degree of randomness, especially in small populations where the effects of luck become increasingly important.
" ... such a seemingly random process ..." richjoeyi
Now isn't this one of the more interesting questions in evolution theory. As far as I am concerned this is a key question in the debate.
Is the process of evolution a truly random process or not ?
Is there any substantial evidence within the theory itself to support the one or the other, ...[text shortened]... way or because it is obvious or because it is more or less convenient to assume this ?
Joe
As for the 'microevolution', 'macroevolution' question, I don't think it's simply a case of transatlantic differences. Certainly, I've never heard Stephen Jay Gould (a well known American evolutionary scientist) use the terms. I'm pretty sure they have been introduced to the debate by creationists rather than scientists.