Thanks, Hardcore. I’d post more, but I just can’t take the two minute wait for a SDMB page to load too often (if it loads at all).
We’ll see how long I have to watch “Connect: Host boards.straightdope.com contacted. Waiting for reply…” for this message to post . . .
Michael Shermer once confronted David Irving on the subject of the Jewish Holocaust, which Irving denies. One of the things Irving believes is that the German word ausrotten does not necessarily mean “extermination”, even though that’s what every German dictionary says. He says it can mean “get rid of” which does not necessarily mean “kill”. If ausrotten doesn’t mean “exterminate,” then all those orders given by Nazis to “ausrotten Jews” could simply mean “transport” or “remove” or “expel” or “deport,” according to Irving.
Shermer then points out out all other instances the word ausrotten was used in other orders; the orders to ausrotten American forces, for example. Isn’t it be absurd, Shermer points out, to think the Nazi high command wanted American forces to be “transported” or “expelled” or “deported” or “removed”?
Sound familiar, hardcore, MEBuckner? Deniers of evolution think in patterns similar to Holocaust deniers. They pick at single pieces of evidence, believing that proving one piece to be false proves the whole concept to be false. If one evolutionist gets it wrong, then all evolutionists are wrong. If one fossil is a fake, they are all fake. It’s bizarre. It’s a wonder they are able to function in the real world at all.
This is just plain bizarre Hardcore. I state that according to the definition used by myself and many if not most biology textbooks the OP isn’t describing evolution, rather natural selection.
You state that according to the only definition ever used by biology texts it is evolution.
I reply that the definition you have given is far from universally accepted, and therefore my statement is correct. I provide cites supporting my definition. You then come back with a definition of another word from the same sources that agree with you and state that “If something is an example of microevolution, it is therefore an example of evolution itself”. This is in direct contradiction of the definitions provided which require a change in form for for evolution to have occurred. Microevolution is no more an example of evolution than sub-lightspeed travel is an example of lightspeed travel. I’m having a hard time comprehending how you can not understand that prefixes have the capacity to change the meaning of a word, particularly when definitions have been posted that state quite clearly that the words have different meanings.
Then this “Let’s pretend for a moment that I haven’t already conceded that it was a generalization designed to make a point.”
Well what you actually said was “I most likely am guilty of a generalization here”. Not most likely but undoubtedly. If you concede that your statement was a groundless generalisation then you can have no objection to my statement that what is occurring is not evolution based on at least some technical definitions. Unless you wish to continue arguing over who has the most accurate definition nd the most supporters. Oh look you do.
"The vast majority of biologists, biology textbooks, biology courses, and professors define evolution as “a change in the allele frequency of a population” "
Ahh, an argument from authority, how refreshing. We’ve gone from “I can see you also do not comprehend the definition of evolution.” and “any decent biology book will define it just like MEBuckner” to this. It matters little how many people agree with you and how many with me. The fact remains that you attempted to prove my statement wrong based on a definition and I have supported that definition. After that it just becomes semantics, which you seem to love. I’m bored with it myself.
microevolution IS evolution
Not according to the definitions posted it’s not. Microevolution is a change in gene/allele frequencies and Evolution is a change in form. Microevolution is no more evolution than a microlitre is a litre or a micrometre is a metre.
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.
Of course evolution works at the population level. You are avoiding the point. According to the definitions evolution requires “the gradual development …from pre-existing organisms” and a “change gradually from one form into another”. There has been no development from pre-existing organisms nor any change in form. The pre-existing organisms in this instance were exactly the same as the organisms alive today, which have not developed. Therefore according to the technical definitions provided we have no evolution occurring. Like I said Hardcore, you’re free to use your definition if you like, I’ll use mine, but if you insist on making stupid statements that all authorities agree with you I’ll have to prove you wrong again.
You then go on to give a quote outlining the interactions which drive evolution and state that you are at loss to understand what part of this process I feel is missing. This is a glaring logical error of course. I don’t need to feel anything is missing. Just because all the necessary interactions are there does not mean that evolution must occur. Try this simpler example Hradcore. Fire is the result of the interaction between between friction, oxygen and wood. True enough? However just having friction, oxygen and wood doesn’t mean that we have fire does it? The causes do not equal the definition. Having all the interacting parts does not mean evolution is occurring. In this instance because living things are not changing from one form into another or developing from pre-existing organisms then there is no evolution.
You perpetuate the logical error by quoting me as aying that it will take a long time for gene frequencies to change in human populations and stating that “This clearly indicates that you believe a “change in genetic frequencies” represents evolution”.
Of course it does no such thing. It indicates that I believe that a change in gene frequencies is necessary for evolution to occur. See the difference now? No of course you don’t. Let’s try something simpler. If I say that four wheels and an engine are necessary to make an automobile I don’t suppose you would argue (though you just might). I could then say, if someone asked me how fast a car could be made, that it would be some time before four wheels and an engine would delivered to my workshop implying that this would delay car manufacturing. That does not mean however that four wheels and an engine sitting on the road constitutes a car. I hope this simplifies things.
Basically hardcore you are failing to understand the difference between the constituents and drivers of evolution (microevolution, change in gene frequencies, the potential for a species to increase its numbers, the genetic variability of offspring due to mutation and recombination of genes, a finite supply of the resources required for life, and the ensuing selection by the environment of those offspring better able to survive and leave offspring) and evolution itself as defined by many if not most biology readers, lecturers, professors, researchers and textbooks.
I’m sure you will continue to argue you petty little semantic line.
Oh and for the record it’s a bit rich to complain that you are not being treated civilly and are referred to as a fool and a weasel after you have used lines like:
“you will never open your eyes and see the evidence, instead prefering to covering them in some sort of monkey-like “see no evil” approach.”
“keep looking foolish”
“dishonest adversary”
and
“it is so easy to make you look foolish”
Perhaps prettier than my insults hardcore, but no more civil. The main difference being I can apparently take it as well as dish it out.
MEBuckner
(Who gets two more mentions in this post)
Agreed. It has also been shown in this thread that evolution may be defined, and frequently is in fact defined – by biologists-, as “a change in form over time” or “the development of one organism form another” or words to that effect.
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.
It would be, except that Hardcore accused me of failing to comprehend the definition of evolution, and suggested that all ‘respectable’ sources agreed with your definition. He did this in order to refute my statement that what was occurring in the OP wasn’t evolution. His entire argument hinges on every text agreeing with him. If any ‘respectable’ sources agree with my definition then his argument must be purely semantic.
QED
In light of that the difference between every last biology book and some biology books is of great importance to his argument. If you and he are prepared to admit that by at least some technical definitions the OP does not describe evolution then we can let it rest as a question of semantics.
Borodog
I’m having some trouble with your reasoning.
“The biological definition of evolution is exactly as you state”
This appears to be in direct contradiction to the biological definitions of Henderson’s and Raven and Johnson.
“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. “
Microevolution and macroevolution are scientific terms in wide use amongst evolutionary scientists and geneticists. Microevolution is different from macroevolution as demonstrated by the definitions. I have no argument with microevolution leadng to macroevolution, however you appear to be suggesting that the two are not different, which they clearly are.
Jab1
Nazi comparisons now huh? You lookin’ for a fight? 
But seriously it’s a poor analogy. I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem with anyone using any definition they like. I’m not picking at a minor piece of evidence. I am picking at the keystone of Hardcore’s argument. Without the blanket support of all respectable biology texts his argument goes from being a technical to a semantic one. Semantics I can live with. Statements like “I can see you do not comprehend the definition of evolution” and “any decent biology book will define it just like MEBuckner.” are a blatant dissemination of incorrect information (to put it tactfully), go no way towards fighting ignorance and are hardly in the spirit of the boards.
Gaspode,
I refuse to argue the bleeding obvious. If it makes you feel better to redefine the terms that every biologist and geneticist in the world uses and understands, in order to “win” an argument, be my guest. It’s no skin off my nose, or theirs.
All I’ll say is that a quick search of the web returns:
http://www.gen.umn.edu/faculty_staff/hatch/1131/Evolution/implications.html
“Biological Evolution is the change in composition of a population’s gene pool from generation to generation . . . What changes are the frequencies of genes (alleles) . . .”
http://www.gen.umn.edu/faculty_staff/hatch/1131/RM14_causesevolution.html
“Biological evolution is the change in gene (allelic) frequencies that occur in populations from generation to generation.”
http://www.udallas.edu/biology/GenBio/Speciation.html
“One definition of evolution is change in gene frequency with time.”
Try http://www.talkorigins.org, which unfortunately seems to be down right now.
What, exactly, do you mean by “a change in form”? It’s not enough for the genetic code to change? Do you want to see an organism to change throughout its entire body before you’ll admit Darwinism is real?
Oh, for crying out loud! That’s one of the worst comparisons I’ve ever seen! Microevolution is evolution on a small (or short) scale; at the end of an incident of microevolution, the organisms are still of the same species; they can still reproduce with their predecessors (if they’re still around). Macroevolution is change on a large (or long) scale; at the end, the organisms are now of a completely new species; they could not reproduce with their predecessors (which are most likely all extinct by now).
Argument from authority is allowed as long as you consult the proper authority. If I want the definition of “biological evolution,” call me crazy, but I think a biologist would be the proper authority on the matter.
Gaspode, I’m starting to think that English is not your first language. This is not meant as an insult.
The new population of locusts have a resistance to pesticide that the old population lacked. How in the name of Stephen Jay Gould can that NOT be considered a development?! How can the new ones be considered "exactly the same" as the old?! Frankly, this is sheer lunacy. You’re arguing that a change is not a change!
No, it’s heat, oxygen and fuel. Things other than wood can burn, you know.
Then you believe incorrectly. A change in genes is the result of evolution, not its cause. Environment and reproduction are the causes of evolution.
**
[/quote]
See the difference now? No of course you don’t.**
[/quote]
My, how arrogant.
David Irving is not a Nazi or even a Nazi-sympathizer. What he is, is a very poor historian when it comes to the Holocaust. He has a blind spot in regards to that event.
Then what do you call your posts to hardcore? Compliments? Valentines?
You are all both right and wrong.
Yes, what is described in the OP is evolution.
But when there is a discussion about evolution, it is assumed what is being talked about is macroevolution, not evolution in general.
Evolution by natural selection has been proven, which is why evolution is a law and not a theory. But macroevolution is a theory based on evolutionary law, which says that “the ultimate source of genetic variation is mutation and that mutations followed by genetic recombination provide the “raw material” of evolution by natural selection.” http://www.gen.umn.edu/faculty_staff/hatch/1131/RM14_causesevolution.html
So when people are arguing against evolution, they are saying that they don’t believe that mutations are responsible for genetic variation and biological speciation. You cannot argue with the natural selection aspect of evolution (which is the example in the OP) because it’s a fact. (Well, i suppose you could argue about it, but you could also argue that the Earth is a cube.)
Gaspode, please tell me you are only demonstrating for everyone what a specious argument with no supporting facts looks like. I shudder to think you might seriously believe the nonsense you’ve posted.
You really need to support this statement with something other than your delusions of competency. Since we both agree the OP describes a changing gene frequency of the locust population, and this is often referred to as microevolution, you must produce non-creationist biology textbooks (note the plural) that indicate microevolution is not evolution. Judging from your complete lack of sources so far, I won’t hold my breath. Even your lone cited biology book lists microevolutionary examples(peppered moth melanism, lead tolerance in plants) in The Evidence for Evolution chapter. Why are these considered evolution, but pesticide resistance is not?
As jab1 so eloquently noted, 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.
This MUST be a weak attempt at humor on your part. Surely you didn’t mean this as a valid argument, did you?
So, in the Gaspodian homeworld of WhackoWorld, dropping the prefix micro in front of a word removes it from the set of the root word? Hmmm… by this logic:
[ul]
[li] a microbiologist is not a biologist[/li][li] a microbrewery is not a brewery[/li][li] a microcassette is not a cassette[/li][li] a microcomputer is not a computer[/li][li] a microcopy is not a copy[/li][li] microcosm is not a cosm (hey… maybe you’re onto something!) :rolleyes:[/li][/ul]
I could go through the whole fucking dictionary like this, and practically every example holds true to this form. Well, maybe not microphone. Hell Gaspode, the only samples you can show are when micro means one millionth of the root word. Is this it Gaspode? Do you think evolution is a million microevolutions? If not, how many microevolutions does it take to equal an evolution?
Since you like dictionary definitions for scientific terms so much, please explain why Merriam-Webster’s OnLine defines microevolution as:
How can something be a “minor evolutionary change”, yet not be evolution? Please, Gaspode, the entire scientific community awaits your authoritative response.
Imagine that… Gaspode has a hard time understanding the meaning of a word. What a surprise. I suppose next you’ll tell me the Pope really is Catholic.
There is no argument over who has the most accurate definition and the most supporters. You could win “most whacko argument” if you wanted.
The only thing you have proven wrong is the notion that one must have one’s facts straight to post in Great Debates. Though you have proven that logical thinking is superfluous.
Sure. Microevolution must occur for evolution to occur, but microevolution isn’t really evolution, except some of the time, when the moon is full, and Gaspode says it is. Oh yeah, that cleared up everything :rolleyes:
So, a change in gene frequencies is necessary, but you must also have a “change in form” in order to qualify for Gaspodian evolution? What qualifies as a “change in form”, and what is excluded? What is the criteria used to determine when the microevolutionary changes are labeled a “change in form”? Can you give some real-world examples that fit your criteria? Since “change in form” is such a highly technical, scientific term, there must be plenty of sources which give the details. If not, I’m sure the Nobel Prize will be yours once you clear up this enduring biological mystery.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you leave the crack pipe in the closet for a few hours prior to posting next time.
As noted above, you are definitely going to have to back this up. Numerous examples posted so far show that most (if not all) biology sources will define evolution just as I do. Your only biology book thus far agrees with me. If you wish to maintain your “microevolution is not evolution” stance, then show me ANY biology textbooks, professors, etc. that explicitly agree with you. And let’s stick with science sources and exclude the creationists material, shall we?
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?
Ok… so the OP is evolution, and is NOT evolution. Wow. No wonder you never lose a debate. :rolleyes:
The ball’s in your court Gaspode, what will you do with it? Will you finally answer the questions, particularly about the definition of “change in form”? Provide examples or retractions of your allegations? Post ANY sources that stipulate microevolution is NOT evolution? Or will you continue to pursue irrelevent tangents, insisting that I must have EVERY biology book concur with my position?
I just wish I could find a bookie willing to take the odds.
Jeez, guys, forget I asked!
I know this is totally inappropriate to this discussion, but what the heck, he started it[sup]1[/sup] with his reference to the New Oxford English Dictionary back on page one.
From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
Ha! Take that, Oxford! (I always have liked the American Heritage Dictionary.)
Doc Moss: Never! It’s a battle to the death, now! With our shields or on them!
[sub][sup]1[/sup]“Mooommm! Gaspode’s citing general-use dictionaries in a discussion of the definition of technical terms!”[/sub]
Argument from authority is allowed as long as you consult the proper authority. If I want the definition of “biological evolution,” call me crazy, but I think a biologist would be the proper authority on the matter.
**
[/QUOTE]
What’s particularly ludicrous about all this is that the “argument from authority” in question isn’t something like, “You’d better believe in evolution, because big famous scientists say it really happens.” The argument is only stating that the word “evolution” is defined by biologists in a particular way, and the “authority” is just quotes from biologists indicating that yes indeed, that’s how they define it.
If that is a fallacious appeal to authority, when how on earth can one prove that one has the correct definition of “evolution”? Why is it an erroneous appeal to authority to quote the biologists who determine the proper definition of their own terminology, but not an appeal to authority when Gaspode quotes the dictionaries which only give secondhand reports of what the scientists say?
You know, I’ve been reading The True Believer lately, and I saw a statement which made me chuckle:
“If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible or vague, it has to be unverifiable… When some part of a doctrine is relatively simple, there is a tendency among the faithful to complicate and obscure it. Simple words are made pregnant with meaning and made to look like symbols in a secret message. There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate true believer. He seems to use words as if he were ignorant of their true meaning. Hence, too, his taste for quibbling, hair-splitting and scholastic tortuousness.” (from part 57.)
-Ben
Well, if Eric Hoffer said it, it has to be true…
I asked a fundamentalist Jewish person how he
understtod the contradiction between fossil evidence and the idea that God created the world 5000 or so years ago.
He answered that one theory was that “God created the world already old [in other words with fossils already in it]”
Given this kind of “logic,” there is no amount of evidence that could convince this creationsit.
I spoke with an Orthodox Jewish creationist who accounted for fossils by saying that maybe God created the world “already old”, that is with fossils already in it.
There is no arguing or evidence that can be presented against this kind of “logic”. In the philosopher Carl Popper’s term, it is not refutable.
I met a creationist who said that God might have created the world “old”,with fossils already in the ground.
Given this type of “logic”, there is no possible way to present evidence to convince a creationist that he/she is wrong.
'Kay, berdollos, I think we all got it the first time.
For what it’s worth, I find creationism of this sort–“non-scientific creationism” one might call it–to be somewhat more intellectually respectable than the “scientific” kind. If someone is really saying “the evidence shows this, yes, but I just don’t believe in evidence, I believe in revelation” then, no, you can’t really argue with them–at least not on the evidence–and yes, I can see logical problems with that (Last Thursdayism: “the Invisible Pink Unicorn made everything Last Thursday”, including last Wednesday’s newspaper and my memories of having read it; more nastily, what if some racist comes along and says Jews and black people don’t have souls, and all the evidence that they’re people too is just a test of white people’s faith?). Still, all this to me beats this monkeying around with “vapor canopies” and “flood geology” and “hydraulic sorting of fossils” and similar claptrap.
On and on and on.
OK, how many biology textbooks would you require to be convinced. 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?
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.
Practically every example? Gee, which means what? That the English language isn’t perfect? You really do love semantics don’t you Hardcore? Why don’t you just accept the fact that Evolution and Microevolution have different meanings that cannot be reconciled? If Microevolution is a change in gene frequency and Evolution is a change in form in organisms then for Microevolution to be Evolution every change in gene frequency would have to lead to a change in form of the organism. Killing half the population leads to a change in gene frequency but no organisms have changed form. Microevolution is therefore not evolution.
How about microtome? 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. You are implying that if I talk about the governments microeconomic policy then I am referring to its entire economic policy because microeconomics is economics and no more is needed to fulfill economic policy. All the microeconomic policy in the world won’t equal its economic policy. It needs to be scaled up to equal economic policy.
Ask the dictionary. It’s the book that gives a definition of Evolution as “a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations” I’m sure they’ll receive your e-mail with delight and will be able to provide a far better explanation than I.
Imagine that, Hardcore unable to read a sentence and looking foolish attempting sarcasm. 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”.
That is all that your argument is based on Hardcore.
And you’ve been reduced to this? You really don’t understand that cell division must occur for population growth to occur, but that cell division isn’t population growth? Man you’re weird.
Uh, no, to qualify for Raven and Johnstonian evolution, amongst many others. But I wouldn’t expect you to acknowledge that.
Follow your own suggestion. Email Raven & Johnson and Henderson’s and ask. I’m sure they need a laugh. Your argument is with them. I’m following their definitions.
No obviously not. 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.
And how many references would you like. How about:
Biology of Microorganisms
Eighth Edition
Madigan, Martinko and Parker, Southern Illinois University
“evolution: change to show new biological properties”
Biology Today: An Issues Approach
Eli Minkoff & Pam Baker, Garland Science
“evolution, the theory of lasting change amongst biological populations”
BIOLOGY: Concepts and Connections
Campbell Reece Mitchell, Benjamin Cummings
“evolution All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today.” Note all the changes, not just the genetic changes.
How many more would you like Hardcore?
And for the coup de gras I offer you:
Moss, R.
The Scientist 11[20]:7, Oct. 13, 1997
“Evolution,” in the context most biologists intend to use it, is correctly defined simply as “descent with modification.”
“There is no consensus of the term’s meaning even among biologists and authors of biology texts (see Y. Linhart, Bioscience, 47[6]:385, 1997)”
Happy now that your definition is not the only correct one and that there is indeed no consensus on the definition that will agree with you, me or MEBuckner?
well aside from the fact that it gives three completely different definitions for Evolution, Microevolution and Macroevolution, sure it agrees with you. :rolleyes:
Your right. Your bitching. There’s a difference.
And that’s your limit? 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.
I’ll leave that to the publishers of the definition methinks.
Considering every single dictionary gives different definitions for micoevolution and evolution it tends to suggest that the fact is fairly much accepted. This is a bit like asking you to post a source that stipulates that a mouse is NOT a moose. It’s so bloody obvious from a cursory inspection of references that no-one is likely to actually state it explicitely. However what I can offer are these cites that make it rather obvious from context.
Leigh, EG
The Modern Synthesis
TREE, Vol 14 No. 12. December 1999
“Empirical evidence that evolution is mendellian suggests evolution results from changes in gene frequencies.” Note ‘evolution results from’ microevolution rather than ‘evolution is’ microevolution.
Or would this convince you:
Erwin, DH
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution
Evolution and Development
2:2 78-84 (2000)
Which notes amongst other things “the exhaustive documentation of large-scale patterns which reveal a richness to evolution not explained by microeveolution.”
Hmm, an author in “Evolution and Development" of all journals commenting on ‘evolution not explained by microevolution’. Hard to assert that microevolution IS evolution with that sort of comment isn’t it? Not that that will stop you. From the same article:
“Since all evolutionary change involves intraspecific modification and speciation”. All evolutionary change Hardcore. Yet all evolutionary change is defined by all scientists as ‘a change in gene frequency’ isn’t it? Does that mean that all changes in gene frequency involve speciation? Don’t think so Tim.
You seem to be working on a very outdated definition of evolution Hardcore. As Erwin notes, your concept that evolution = microevolution was introduced in 1937, with the proviso that it was necessary ‘at the present level of knowledge’. He goes on to note that since then “palaeontologists have established the heirarchichal structure of evolutionary change, with convincing evidence for …discontinuities betweeen intraspecific, microeolutionary change and the larger scale patterns.” I assume that your level of knowledge is firmly entrenched in the WWII era. You should also note the ‘heirarchical structure’ differentiating between microevolution and higher levels, ie macroevolution, megaevolution and evolution generally.
In his conclusion we have “discontinuities impart a heirarchical structure to evolution, a structure that impedes, obstructs and even neutralises the effects of microevolution” Read it again Hardcore “a … structure to evolution that… neutralises the effects of microevolution” Now if microevolution IS evolution then we have “a structure to evolution that neutralises the effects of evolution” Yeah, I believe that microevolution is evolution.
Follow this with “the … question is not, is macroevolution distinct from microevolution but the relative… impact”
It’s been a long day, I’ll get back to answering everyone else later.
“Hey, did you guys hear? Professor Smith just won the Nobel Prize in Economics[sup]1[/sup]!”
“Really? Wow, cool! I’m taking a class from him this semester! Say, what did he win it for?”
“It was for some work he did on how consumers react to price fluctuations during recessions.”
“Oh…but that’s not economics.”
“Huh?”
“No, that’s microeconomics.”
{ensuing five-hour conversation mercifully snipped}
“Ummm…whatever, dude.”
[sub][sup]1[/sup]Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the Nobel Prize in Economics.[/sub]
Point taken, MEB.
However, there is a valid point that needs to be addressed here. The Origin of Species and all the work done relative to its propositions deals in macroevolution, attempting to make the case for phylogenesis by means of macroevolution.
Microevolution, no matter how well documented, does not prove phylogenesis by macroevolution.
To be sure, I’m firmly convinced there’s adequate data in the fossil record for macroevolution.
But it’s a quite valid point to make. Adaptive changes within a population do not equal speciation. Speciation does not equal phylogenesis.
I hasten to add, for those who are not familiar with my own views, that I am not arguing that “Creation Science” is anything more than special pleading with highly selective evidence. But ignoring the occasional valid point it makes in an effort to “preserve Darwinism,” as a few of its advocates do, is likewise not good science.
MEBuckner wrote:
Oh great … now “microeconomics” doesn’t qualify as any of the economic sciences either! :rolleyes: