Ok, reading about what everyone, including myself wrote, I have come to the main reason why there is still fierce opposition to evolution:
Evolution theory declares man to be a direct continuum of species development in the nature of the Earth. This is most directly in conflict with Western theology that states God, with divine inspiration, created human man and woman separate from the rest of the animals. According to eolution, we are no longer special, divinely-inspired entities on this planet, but just another animal species. This is a terrible blow to those who think that we are part divine, and above all the other animals, just for being human. After all (in Western thought), we spend all this time fighting the and taming the forces of nature, while aspiring to become spirits in a heavenly or an earthly paradise. Now we learn that we were just a small part of this natural order, generated by some randomized seed generator, that just arrived on this planet just recently. With chimpanzee as ancestors no less!! Where is our divinity in that??
However, as we look closely on our religious texts, we find that God did not give out specific details on how he actually created all of the animals. As I come to think of it as a programmer, if I were create the inhabitants of the earth, I would have to start with a template of the first animal and plant, that can survive in water (the earth surface is 78% water), and that can reproduce. I take the primordial ooze (which I think would most likely be some kind of mineral, carbonated watery substance), make basic DNA/RNA patterns, and create protozoa and algae. Then, using those templates, I develop more and more complex structures of one-celled animals and plants. Look at them, all swiggly, rubbing at each other each chance it gets. Hey, what would happen if I put 2-cells in a single membrane? Do I get to create 2-cell animals and plants? But now how do I introuce this new organism to the wild without creating a totally disrupting situation for the one-celled organisms? Of course, have it come from the reproductive process of one-cell organisms. That way it looks natural. Some organisms reproducing the 2-cell may protect it until it is time for the 2-cell to reproduce. In time, the 2-cell begat a 4-cell, and 4-cell begat the 8-cell and so on.
The above could be silly, but it is a challenge to resolve the Divine concept with evolutionary theory.
Excellent analysis. I argued nearly the same thing in a class I took last quarter called “The History of God.” The biggest problem that modern science presents to religion is not the refutation of crudely literalistic interpretations of holy scripture, but the refutation of traditional theologies.
For example, according to the creationist model, the universe is 6,000 years old. This means that the current average lifespan (80 years) takes up a rather significant part of the universe’s history: about 1.3%. But the scientific model has a 15 billion year old universe. Now, the average human lifespan occupies merely .00000053% of its history. Quite a diminishing of individual importance!
Even ideas not traditionally opposed by religious literalists can be quite dangerous. Freud’s theories of the subconscious throw a serious monkey wrench into traditional concepts of free will.
Needless to say, evolution has received the most opposition. Look how many creationists are adamant about how they are not the descendents of monkeys. That’s why I think it’s probably best when arguing with creationists to present evidence of less personally insulting evolution–such as the evolution of plants–first.
Opus: You’re probably right about dealing with, for example, plants first. But that would suggest you’re dealing with people who can rationally discuss such things. For most creationists, whether you’re talking about plants or people, they hear the word “evolution” and their ears clamp shut.
There are some religions (well, one that I know of – Bahai – there an apostrophe in there somewhere, but I always forget where) that allow for evolution in nature, just not in man. I remember several years ago when I wrote a letter to the editor about evolution, a Bahai responded to specifically note this and say that of course evolution happened. Except for man, who was created by God.
You know how no kid ever wants to learn that he was an “accident”, unplanned by his parents? That (s)he always wants to be his/her parents’ “favorite”?
Perhaps one reason Creationists have such a knee-jerk reaction against evolution is because it makes them feel like they were unplanned. “What do you mean, I’m just one of all the other animals, God? Are you saying I’m not your favorite any more? Waaaaaa!”
There is a lot of confusion between the two concepts. Perhaps God created a universe which could evolve.
Perhaps God created a simple life form which could evolve.
The fact that a wolf could evolve into a chihuahua or a tapir-like creature into an elephant, or a proto-human into a human does not mean that God is not the source of life or of creation.
Doc Moss, you are fortunate enough to witness first-hand some of the methods creationists use to perform their particular brand of denialism. Just pretend the evidence doesn’t exist, or try to make it disappear by redefining evolution until it only encompasses speciation. It would be funny to watch if it wasn’t so sad.
Gaspode, just as I suspected, you once again wish to pursue definition tangents, rather than have an intelligent debate. Let’s review your argument thus far. You maintain that the situation the OP describes is not technically evolution, and you are using the following for support:
[ul]
[li] New Oxford Dictionary of English – the process by which different kinds of living organism are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.[/li][li] Henderson’s Dictionary of Biological Terms – the gradual development of organisms from pre-existing organisms since the beginning of life.[/li][li] Biology, Raven and Johnson, Mcgraw-HIll – The theory of evolution - the notion that living things can change gradually from one form into another over the course of time.[/li][/ul]
Hopefully, even you realize the futility in using a dictionary of English to conduct a scientific debate, so your first cite is irrelevant. Let’s agree not to ask our English teachers to define scientific terms, and we won’t ask Richard Dawkins to diagram sentences.
Henderson’s, as a dictionary reference, is just slightly more germane, as at least it specializes in biological terms. Their definition is very broad; however, the existing locusts can surely be construed as having gradually developed from pre-existing organisms. So the situation in the OP would be considered evolution by this definition. It is still a dictionary, not a science book, and certainly not a biology course textbook by any stretch of your vivid imagination.
Biology, on the other hand, did leave me confused. I expected more from any biology book not intended for elementary school children. I promptly noticed that your statement referred to the theory of evolution, and not a definition of evolution itself, so I decided to investigate. I do not have a copy of the book, so I started my search online. First, I discovered this page at McGraw-Hill which gave some information on the book, but the full text unfortunately is not given. However, the Chapter Tools lists the title of each chapter, and proceeding to Chapter 21 - The Evidence for Evolution yields some interesting tidbits, including the Extended Lecture Outline. Lo and behold, what do you think I found?
Imagine that… YOUR only source which is actually a biology textbook agrees with me – evolution consists of changes in gene frequency within populations. Color me not surprised.
Oh, its a familiar tactic alright. YOUR familiar tactic of placing words into the mouths of others which they never expressed. Disregarding for the moment that your cites (excluding the english dictionary) have been shown to support my position, I never said they were unworthy of consideration. If a biology book uses a substandard definition, I will deem it a substandard book on that topic. Thankfully, your biology book agrees with my statement on evolution. I also noticed they agree the peppered moth is an example of evolution, in direct contradiction to your claim that it is not. I wonder why you haven’t even bothered to read this book you consider to be authoritative?
Throughout your post, you sing a recurring chorus of disinformation. Namely:
and so on, etc, etc. Since I have demonstrated above that your lone biology textbook reference agrees with me, an intellectually honest opponent would admit the mistake, and apologize for the accusations of lying and weaseling, while a dishonest adversary would continue with the present tactics. I have no doubt which course you will choose.
I wonder if you will maintain this stance in light of the evidence indicating their agreement with me. If you still doubt their position, I challenge you to email them concerning this issue and question them directly. I would love to hear their response, and certainly would agree to abide by it.
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that Raven & Johnson agree with the “change in gene frequency” definition, let’s try it using your vague description. You seem to agree the population as a whole has changed, acquiring pesticide resistance where it did not have it before. What is this, if not a “change in form”? Since “change in form” is by no means a scientific term, are we to simply ring up Gaspode every time we need to know whether a change in the population corresponds to your idea of a “change in form”? And what do you think is responsible for any “change in form” if not a “change in gene frequency”? Elves and fairies? What actually would you consider to be a “change in form”? Locusts sprouting extra legs? Dogs giving birth to cats? Surely you can see the problems with using such a vague defintion.
Gaspode, for the second time, I agree with you. Only those who do not understand or are ignorant of the facts behind evolution continue to deny it. Should science redefine its terms to give more room to maneuver for those who wish to oppose a concept? Should we redefine atomic theory so those who wish to deny the existence of atoms can do so more comfortably? You continue to make no sense with this line of reasoning.
Yeah, try these facts:
[ul]
[li] Your cited biology book agrees with me.[/li][li] If this is your idea of “blow out of the water”, no wonder it is so easy to make you look foolish[/li][/ul]
Weasel away from??!! I wouldn’t give you the pleasure.
Not only is this claim erroneous, but your claims that the subject of the OP do not represent evolution, and now your claim that Raven and Johnson’s Biology book does not support the “change in gene frequency” definition, have all been shown to be in error. Why in the world would I even need to weasel away from your mistakes?
Therein lies your biggest mistake, Gaspode. You wish to rely on dictionaries in a debate about scientific terms and concepts. Vague definitions in popular media have no bearing on scientific discourse, nor should they. You can pretend otherwise, but don’t complain when you are ignored by those with a scientific background.
You should first provide ONE biology textbook that disagrees with me to demonstrate any error, but I most likely am guilty of a generalization here. Perhaps a better statement would have been “the vast majority of quality biology textbooks will define it just like MEBuckner”. If this is the hair you choose to split, you have missed the entire thrust of the argument. A population of locusts evolving a resistance to pesticide is a CLASSIC example of evolution. Evolution is defined as “a change in allele frequency of a population”. Almost every biology textbook will support this view. Maybe even all of them.
What’s next, Gaspode? Will you continue to deny the evidence staring you in the face? Persist in the claim that your Biology book doesn’t agree with the standard definition of evolution as a “change in gene frequency of a population”? Stick with vague definitions from a dictionary of English in a debate about scientific concepts? Or will you be a man, admit your errors, and apologize for calling me a weasel and a liar?
Yeah… as if there’s any question. :rolleyes:
Just a little more unsolicited advice, Gaspode. Try mixing in a few paragraph breaks. Your 3rd grade run-on style of writing hurts my eyes.
The first model is usually referred to as “deism”. A deity created the universe in such a way in which life (and people) could evolve, and then left that universe to its own devices.
The second model is a kind of “abiogenesis deism”. A deity created the universe and later interfered with that universe once, and once only, to create the first living organisms. Thereafter, said deity continued to leave the universe to its own devices.
A third model, which you did not mention, is called “theistic evolution.” In the theistic evolution model, the deity who created the universe (and perhaps created the first life forms, too) takes an active role in deciding how evolution is to progress. Said deity directs how the dice are rolled, so to speak, every time a speciation event comes around.
None of these models is what is meant by “creationism.” Creationism, as the term is used here and elsewhere, means “special creationism” – wherein the deity that created the universe also created each and every kind of living creature in more-or-less the same form that they exist in today. This type of Creationism is at odds with evolution, natural selection, common descent, descent with modification, etc… It is this type of Creationism that we are debating in this thread.
Note that tracer’s model # 2 is a variation of the old “God of the Gaps”, and we may eventually learn enough about how life got started to make the Abiogenesis-God look as silly as the Sun-God or the Rain-God.
Thanks for defining the concepts of deism, abiogenesis deism and evolutionary theism.
What about the idea that not God himself, but supernatural “helpers” such as archangels, other divine beings or spiritualized humans “on the ohter side” are helping to guide evolution? (This view, by the way, is very consistent with some scriptures, in which God uses the term “we” regarding the creation of the world.)
Thanks for defining deism, abiogenesis deism and evolutionary theism.
What about the idea that the deity has deligated the direction of life to other divine beings such as archangels or to enlightened humans on the other side? This view is consistent with scriptures in which God refers to “us” during the creation process.
Thanks for the info on deism, abiogenetic deism and evolutionary theism.
What about it higher invisible beings such as archangels, et’s, or evolved human spirits oversaw biological evolution?
This idea is consistent with scriptural references to “us” in the creation tales.
Another brilliant attempt at weaseling Hardcore, and one I’m sure DITWD would applaud.
You state that all biology textbooks agree with you on a definition of the word EVOLUTION. I give you cites that state quite clearly that they don’t. You come back with the lamo statement that one of the books I quoted gives a definition of another word that agrees with your definition of evolution, and that this demonstrates that “my cites (excluding the english dictionary) have been shown to support your position”.
Granted they are related topics/concepts Hardcore but the fact remains that Raven and Johnson provide three definitions, one for EVOLUTION that proves your statement wrong, one for MACROEVOLUTION that is at variance with your statement, one for MICROEVOLUTION that agrees with your definition of EVOLUTION. Not surprisingly Henderson’s and the English Dictionary also give definitions for all three words, all different.
Now do you understand that MACROEVOLUTION, MICROEVOLUTION and EVOLUTION are three separate words with different definitions? Do you understand yet that MACROECONOMICS, MICROECONOMICS and ECONOMICS are three separate words with different meanings? How about MACROCELLULAR, MICROCELLULAR and CELLULAR? WHAT ABOUT INTERCELLULAR, INTRACELLULAR and EXTRACELLULAR. If you still don’t get it I can explain in very small words the concept of a prefix and the fact that toxic and non-toxic are not the same word, and the reasons why you shouldn’t swallow the contents of bottles marked toxic.
I really think you should cease these pathetic attempts at playing semantics Hardcore and concede the point while you still have some credibility left.
The simple fact is that Raven and Johnson does not support your assertion that “any decent biology book will define it (evolution) just like MEBuckner.”. I notice that in your last post however you have attempted to soften this somewhat so you won’t look quite so stupid. However there is a big difference between “Almost every biology textbook will support this view.” and the blanket, sweeping statement that you made initially.
I’ll give you one more chance though. If I can find, say, three more biology texts that don’t “define evolution just like MEBuckner.” will you finally be prepared to admit that you made a sweeping and erroneous statement? Or will you then simply state that they too are not ‘decent’ Biology texts by the circular definition that any text that disagrees with you is not a decent text.
Then we have this classic “You seem to agree the population as a whole has changed, acquiring pesticide resistance where it did not have it before. What is this, if not a "change in form”? Well to answer you question Hardcore it is a change in phenotype abundance. Have you actually got one iota of evidence that any of the locusts currently existing are of a different form to a locust that existed prior to the commencement of spraying? If not then I can’t see how you can claim this is a change in form. Locusts that had a certain form have continued to exist, possibly in exactly the same form as they have held for the last 100,000 years. Those that didn’t have that form have died. How has anything actually changed form?
I really suggest that you attempt to find arguments based on something more susbstantial than semantics in future Hardcore or you’ll end up looking foolish yet again.
At least you’re consistent. Consistently insulting and without substance.
I would ask you for an example of this supposed “weaseling”, but I’m not sure you grasp the concept of “evidence”. But go ahead, keep posting silly little accusations instead of debating the topic. You might actually fool one or two people with this smoke screen.
Here we see just how deep your ignorance runs. EVOLUTION encompasses both MICROEVOLUTION and MACROEVOLUTION, much like ECONOMICS includes both MICROECONOMICS and MACROECONOMICS. If something is an example of microevolution, it is therefore an example of evolution itself. Only your twisted bizarro-logic can conceive of microevolution somehow not being representative of evolution.
It’s almost laughable to see you accuse someone of playing semantics immediately after you claim microevolution isn’t evolution. But at least you don’t have to worry about the whole credibility issue, seeing as you have completely lost yours.
And this is denialism at its finest. Only in Gaspode’s alternate reality of anti-logic is microevolution not an example of evolution. The sad thing is this book would provide you with evidence for everything I have claimed in this thread if you would just remove your head from thy nether regions and actually read it.
Ya know, I’ve come to consider it a compliment to be called stupid, a weasel and a liar from someone with your lack of logical abilities. Feel free to continue with the insults, thereby illustrating for everyone your complete absence of an argument.
I beginning to believe that all you know how to do is argue definitions and split hairs. And you are not very good at either of them.
Let’s pretend for a moment that I haven’t already conceded that it was a generalization designed to make a point. Surely you realize that you must first provide ONE biology textbook that doesn’t agree with me before you can speak of finding MORE. But since you obviously misrepresented Raven and Johnson’s position on the definition of evolution, and regrettably cannot understand that microevolution is an example of evolution, I would have to independently verify any cite you offered before I believed it.
Sadly, you continue to obfuscate in an attempt to distract from the actual point. I’ll reiterate, but no doubt you will still not address the issues:
[ul]
[li] The vast majority of biologists, biology textbooks, biology courses, and professors define evolution as “a change in the allele frequency of a population”[/li][li] A population of locusts acquiring pesticide resistance is a prime example of microevolution[/li][li] microevolution IS evolution[/li][li] Your (only) cite of Raven and Johnson lists analagous examples of microevolution (i.e. the peppered moth) in its Evidence for Evolution chapter.[/li][/ul]
At last, here you finally tire of spewing accusations and splitting hairs, and might actually try debating the topic. Maybe there is still hope… :rolleyes:
It doesn’t matter if the current population of locusts consists of a million clones of one that existed prior to the spraying of pesticides. Evolution acts at the POPULATION level, not at the level of the individual organism.
Since the scientific definition of evolution seems to be more than you can absorb, let me try it by posting what the National Science Education Standards recommends about the topic of Biological Evolution for science textbooks in grades 9-12:
I am at loss to understand what part of this process you feel is missing.
Most high school students would have trouble understanding gene frequencies, so they use this approach. As you can plainly see, the timing of the introduction of the mutated gene does not enter into the equation. The dispersal into the population of the gene by those better able to survive the environment is what denotes evolution. You can call it microevolution if you wish, but it is still evolution nonetheless.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention something I noticed from you on another thread. Normally, I don’t like to mix items from one thread into another, but in this case I must. In the Have we stopped evolving? thread about human evolution, you post this gem (bolding by me):
This clearly indicates that you believe a “change in genetic frequencies” represents evolution. Except, of course, in this thread.
Oy. If we could just express it right, we’d get our point across, eh?
Bear in mind that I’m not a biologist, just a guy who took common core classes in evolution once upon a time, and is pretty handy with Google.
Here’s what Gaspode said that set this whole silly brouhaha off in the first place:
I think it’s been adequately shown in this thread that evolution may be defined, and frequently is in fact defined–by biologists–as “a change in gene frequency within a population” or “any change in the frequency of alleles within gene pool from one generation to the next” or words to that effect. 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. The whole thing about whether or not every last biology textbook in the world would define the term that way is a complete hair-splitting tangent.
This tactic, prevaricating about definitions, is often used by creationists, and even though Gaspode apparently isn’t one, that does not make the tactic acceptable.
“Evolution” has a lot of definitions, depending on context. The biological definition of evolution is exactly as you state, the change of frequencies of alleles in a population over time. In popularized media, “evolution” is synonymous with the theory of evolution, which describes the origin of the biological diversity of life on earth, through mechanisms such as common decent, random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.
“Microevolution” and “Macroevolution” are terms that are basically used by creationists as a copout. All creationists accept that “microevolution” occurs and is observable. However this just has to be different from “macroevolution”, because of course, that just can’t happen. Hence we get new terms, differentiating one from the other. Of course, no creationist can tell you where the dividing line between the two is, or why a million years of “microevolution” does not equal “macroevolution.”
MEBuckner, Borodog – he may simply have his defenses up, unable to hear me because of the antagonistic manner in which I have presented the information. A different, calmer voice such as yours may prompt him to take a step back and re-evaluate.
Or perhaps you will be called my cohorts and we are just conspiring to weasel and lie to Gaspode. :eek:
