# Creationists who don't believe in evolution... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2001, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-who-dont-believe-in-evolution/59145 "2001-03-23T13:56:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2001, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-who-dont-believe-in-evolution/59145/81 "2001-04-02T19:45:42Z")
Well of course microeconomics is one of the economic sciences. But there is no Nobel Prize in Economics. [sub](There is, however, a Prize for Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.)[/sub] Polycarp: Well, if he’d said “What the OP describes is an example of natural selection, but not of _speciation_”, that would be one thing. But that’s not what he said. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2001, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-who-dont-believe-in-evolution/59145/82 "2001-04-03T09:47:07Z")
**Gaspode** , your entire argument reduces to this – evolution requires a “change in form”, and you don’t think the OP represents a “change in form”. After repeated inquiries about the definition of this term, you reply thus: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by hardcore_ > > Will you finally answer the questions, particularly about the definition of “change in form”? > > I’ll leave that to the publishers of the definition methinks. (channelling Ben) _ **Weasel Powers Activate!!** _ If you want to leave it to the publishers, then post the publishers definition of it. Oh wait, that’s right, you can’t. Why? Because there is no definition of it. Why? _ **Because it isn’t a scientific term!** _ If you are so sure the OP doesn’t represent a “change in form”, then you should be able to illustrate what this term means. What denotes a “change in form”, and what is excluded by it? How are biologists to determine whether a change in a population is evolution if you cannot define the very essence of its meaning? Why do I continually ask questions I know you will not address? **Gaspode** , if you cannot define the term that your entire argument is based upon, then you are arguing completely from ignorance and cannot justifiably state what is or is NOT evolution. Quit ignoring the main issue and address this point. Showtime, **Gaspode** – put up or shut up. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Gaspode_ > If I can give you 10 that give different definitions for micro-evolution and evolution will that convince you that the microevolution is not evolution? You are either deliberately misconstruing what is needed to support your position that microevolution is not evolution, or you do not have the mental faculties necessary to understand it. Are you fascinated by bright, shiny objects? No one is asking you for examples of vague definitions of evolution. Evolution encompasses many things, INCLUDING microevolution. What you must show to support your non-existent argument is that microevolution is NOT evolution. Let me try it a different way. If you wish to show that a microbiologist is NOT a biologist, it is not sufficient to show that a biologist is NOT a microbiologist. The word _biologist_ includes many concepts, one of which is _microbiologist_. Maybe you can grasp this: – if you claim 2+2\<\>4, you cannot prove this by showing that 4=3+1, or 4=0+4. You MUST demonstrate that 2+2\<\>4. Concerning the “argument from authority”: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by hardcore_ > > this type of argument is not a fallacy under the proper conditions. But I don’t expect you to comprehend the difference, so carry on. > > And that might almost make sense if your ‘authorities’ were any more highly regarded than mine. They aren’t, you just claim more of them. That is an inappropriate argument from authority. I claim more of them alright. I (and others) have shown cites numbering in double digits. You have shown ZERO cites. Zilch, nada, not one cite indicating that an example of microevolution is not an example of evolution. In fact, your lone cite (Raven and Johnson biology book) lists examples of microevolution in the Evidence for Evolution chapter, a fact you have yet to address. Come on, **Gaspode, _answer the freakin’ question!!_** Why does your cited source do this? I don’t know why I bother. You haven’t answered any questions thus far, and I doubt you will start now. > [@](#): > > Killing half the population leads to a change in gene frequency but no organisms have changed form. Microevolution is therefore not evolution. For the umpteenth time **Gaspode** , organisms don’t evolve, populations do. Anything (including genocide) that alters the gene frequency of the population is causing the population to evolve. > [@](#): > > I’ve already stated that the terms are related. That is obvious. But to say that the terms are the same in the face of two different definitions in virtually every reference is ludicrous. Try to read this part carefully. I am not claiming the two terms have identical definitions, any more than I am stating that _microbiologist_ and _biologist_ have the same definition. I am not saying that every _biologist_ is a _microbiologist_, just as I am not claiming that every example of _evolution_ is an example of _microevolution_ (though admittedly I have a difficult time conceiving otherwise). What I am claiming is this – just as every _microbiologist_ is a _biologist_, every example of _microevolution_ is an example of _evolution_. I, and others, have posted numerous examples that support this stance. You need to show ONE source indicating that an example of _microevolution_ is NOT an example of _evolution_, or admit you are working from your own set of assumptions. Now I have tried to phrase this in simple declarative sentences using relatively small words. If you still continue to obfuscate, misrepresent the issue, and refuse to answer the questions, then you are obviously only interested in gamesmanship, and I am finished with you. In your misguided attempt to prove that the situation in the OP does not represent evolution, you now post the following definitions: [ul] [li]evolution: change to show new biological properties[/li][li]evolution, the theory of lasting change amongst biological populations[/li][li]evolution All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today.[/li][li]Evolution," in the context most biologists intend to use it, is correctly defined simply as “descent with modification.”[/li][/ul] Note this does nothing to bolster your theory that microevolution is NOT evolution. In fact, by each of these definitions, _ **the OP exemplifies evolution!!** _ The development of pesticide resistance is a “new biological property”, a “lasting change”, obviously one of “the changes that have transformed life”, and “descent with modification”. Thanks for making my point for me. Then you follow with this: > [@](#): > > Empirical evidence that evolution is mendellian suggests evolution results from changes in gene frequencies. Note ‘evolution results from’ microevolution rather than ‘evolution is’ microevolution. Again you demonstrate my point. If evolution results from microevolution, and the OP is microevolution, then evolution results from the OP. _ **QED** _. I am using your cites and your words. Please explain what part of yourself you disagree with. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by hardcore_ > > How can something be a “minor evolutionary change”, yet not be evolution? > > Ask the dictionary. …I’m sure they’ll receive your e-mail with delight and will be able to provide a far better explanation than I. Another fine example of how you avoid answering questions. No wonder I am the only one here foolish enough to engage in a debate with you. **Gaspode** , my five-year-old nephew can provide far better explanations than you have to this point. At least he will _try_ to respond to the topic at hand. > [@](#): > > If you read it very carefully and sound out the words you’ll probably see that “I’m having a hard time comprehending how you can not understand” Imagine that… **Gaspode** doesn’t understand the concept of humor either. Do they tell jokes in the Outback? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by hardcore_ > > So, a change in gene frequencies is necessary, but you must also have a “change in form” in order to qualify for Gaspodian evolution? > > Uh, no, to qualify for Raven and Johnstonian evolution, amongst many others. Then you need to explain why Raven and Johnson lists the definition of microevolution and lists microevolutionary examples in their Evidence for Evolution chapter. Why is peppered moth melanism and the evolution of lead tolerance in plants considered a “change in form”, but the development of pesticide resistance is not? What is the definition of “change in form”? Please, **Gaspode** , the suspense is killing me!! > [@](#): > > You are a person who believes that if four wheels are necessary to make a car, then four wheels is a car. Get out in the real world more Hardcore. Once again we see one of **Gaspode** ’s few talents – putting words into the mouths of others. I have never made any statement remotely resembling this strawman. Get a real argument, **Gaspode**. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by hardcore_ > > Your only biology book thus far agrees with me. > > well aside from the fact that it gives three completely different definitions for Evolution, Microevolution and Macroevolution, sure it agrees with you. Aside from the fact that it details microevolution in the Evolution chapter, and points to examples of microevolution in this chapter also, any sane person would conclude that Raven and Johnson consider microevolution to be an example of evolution. Do you ever intend to address this issue? Maybe if you continue ignoring the question and post more irrelevent tangents, some 10-year old children might be confused enough to agree with you. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by hardcore_ > > Post ANY sources that stipulate microevolution is NOT evolution? > > Considering every single dictionary gives different definitions for micoevolution and evolution it tends to suggest that the fact is fairly much accepted. I’ll take that as a NO. **Gaspode** , does the fact that dictionaries give differing definitions for _microbiologist_ and _biologist_ suggest that a microbiologist is NOT a biologist? Does the fact that your beloved dictionaries define _microevolution_ as a “small evolutionary change” hold any weight with you? Do you even know how to answer a question directly? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > > > _Originally posted by MEBuckner_ > > > > As I said earlier, it is precisely by this highly “technical” definition that the situation in the OP (if anyone still remembers the OP) is evolution, contra Gaspode. > > > > > > _Originally posted by Gaspode_ > > > Correct. What you fail to mention however is that by the equally highly technical definitions of “the notion that living things can change gradually from one form into another over the course of time.” The situation in the OP is not evolution, in agreement with Gaspode. > > > > _Originally posted by hardcore_ > > Ok… so the OP is evolution, and is NOT evolution. Wow. No wonder you never lose a debate. :rolleyes: > > _Originally posted by Gaspode_ > I have never said anything other than the OP is not evolution. But hey, these starwmen probably make a nice bright fire on those cold northern nights. Sorry for the ultra-embedded quotes, but I want to get this right. So when you responded “Correct” to **MEBuckner** , you of course just meant he was correct in stating “As I said earlier”, NOT “the situation in the OP …is evolution”. Yeah, sure. Whatever. Just like when you spoke of changing genetic frequencies in the human evolution thread, you really meant “change in form”. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by hardcore_ > > Oh, I’m not complaining. I simply have noted the ad hominems such as liar and weasel, demanded you provide examples or retractions, and correctly predicted that I would get neither. Care to rectify the situation? > > Your right. Your bitching. There’s a difference. Classic **Gaspode**. Instead of addressing the question, you instead try to draw a distinction between _bitching_ and _complaining_. I’m sure by Gaspodian standards they have vastly different meanings. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2001, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-who-dont-believe-in-evolution/59145/83 "2001-04-03T19:56:15Z")
_Micro_evolution is like a single frame of motion picture film. _Macro_evolution is the film in its entirety. Evolution is the _subject_ of the film. Does that make it any more clear, **Gaspode**? ---
**Author:** ![Gr8Kat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gr8kat/32/18668_2.png) [@Gr8Kat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gr8Kat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-who-dont-believe-in-evolution/59145/84 "2001-04-04T21:22:16Z")
and I’m not much of a debater so I probably don’t have much to add, but these links (which I don’t think I’ve seem posted yet in this thread, but then I skipped a lot of Gaspod’s semantics nit-picking, so please forgive me) were more than sufficient to convince me that modern scientists know what they’re talking about (uh-oh, is that an argument from authority?). The first is specifically about the human genome project, which I, personally, find fascinating. > **[MSNBC News - Breaking News and News Today | Latest News](https://www.msnbc.com/)** > > MSNBC breaking news and the latest news for today. Get daily news from local news reporters and world news updates with live audio & video from our team. The other two are about transitional “fossils” (both living and dead ;)) which creationists claim don’t exist. [http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm](http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm) [http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/marsupial.html](http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/marsupial.html) I haven’t studied creationism much, but it seems to me that creationists don’t make discoveries, you know? The biologists, genetists, geologists, paleontologists, etc., do the field work and make the discoveries while the creationists just sit around thinking of new excuses why the aforementioned scientists supposedly don’t have a clue as to what they’re talking about. The onus needs to be put back on the creationists to make a startling new discovery or three (and not repeat debunked fables about 11-foot tall people, arctic plum trees, or man and dino foot prints side-by-side). ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-who-dont-believe-in-evolution/59145/85 "2001-04-04T22:58:10Z")
jab1 wrote: > [@](#): > > _Micro_evolution is like a single frame of motion picture film. > > _Macro_evolution is the film in its entirety. > > Evolution is the _subject_ of the film. Does the film have car chases? I ain’t watchin’ a movie if it don’t have car chases. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-who-dont-believe-in-evolution/59145/86 "2001-04-04T23:08:45Z")
And nudity. _Female_ nudity. [sub]Just think of it as evolution in action![/sub] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-who-dont-believe-in-evolution/59145.md?page=4)