# Interested in Proof of Macroevolution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2008, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890 "2008-02-01T19:12:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/121 "2008-02-09T06:07:38Z")
I suppose we could then give them a gender change… -XT ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/122 "2008-02-09T11:53:15Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Since I generally do not read crackpots, even well-intentioned ones, I admit to having missed that particularly odd concept, before. I’m not sure which is scarier: that someone else actually did combine all the errors you have presented as some sort of reconciliation of Genesis and science or that more people than you have actually accepted his errors as presenting a valid argument. I see no conflict between Genesis and science because I do not see Genesis as a scientific tract, but distorting the words of Genesis to match up to misunderstood physics and cosmology is just not the way to go. You are still stuck with water existing before light, light and darkness existing as separate entities without a source, and “days” occurring when no physical matter exists. \*::: shrug ::: \* [/QUOTE] Do you believe Adam existed? ---
**Author:** ![nofloyd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nofloyd/32/2870_2.png) [@nofloyd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nofloyd)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/123 "2008-02-09T12:48:18Z")
\Originally Posted by timtupp “What do you hope to prove” Only that the bible and science don’t have to be mutually exclusive.\ I would think a major problem with this approach is that the biblical account is fixed, and you start with the premise it has to be right. If science accumulates new evidence on a topic/theory - science will change. If new hard evidence changed what we know about the Big Bang, science would change/scrap the Big Bang theory. A few hundred years back scientists believed classical Newtonian mechanics explained things very well. Turns out that’s only within certain parameters and quantum mechanics explains other things better. So ‘science’ had to admit that Newtonian mechanics wasn’t the be and end all. Over the centuries plenty of people tried to match the bible to ‘current’ evidence. You’re doomed to a never ending cycle of shoe-horning a past account to new evidence. The science is going to keep refining/changing. IMHO a pointless exercise. Mutually exclusive. You bet. ---
**Author:** ![Ichbin\_Dubist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/51bf81/32.png) [@Ichbin\_Dubist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ichbin_Dubist)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/124 "2008-02-09T14:06:08Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] And what _exactly_ does all this have to do with micro vs. macro evolution? [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Genesis] Then God said, “Let the water teem with an abundance of living creatures, and on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky.” And so it happened: God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of swimming creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds. … Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds.” And so it happened: God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was. [/QUOTE] It seems pretty clear that the God of Genesis created, if not all, at least a great number of species all at once. Fish and birds first, then cattle and insects next. This doesn’t jibe with the science unless you view it purely as metaphor. Someone reading this account literally would have trouble accepting the completely different timeline that a believe in Evolution would require, but I could see him or her accepting “micro” changes that don’t contradict it outright. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/125 "2008-02-09T14:12:22Z")
[QUOTE=the raindog] Do you believe Adam existed? [/QUOTE] My personal beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. There are theists, (Jewish and Christian, to stay in the frame of refereence of this thread), who accept evolutionary science without any problem. They may take “Adam” to be the first human or proto-human to develop self-awareness and be infused with a soul. They may take “Adam” to be a general reference to “first” (and, therefore, all subsequent) humans. They may view the mythology of the two separate Creation myths at the beginning of Genesis in some other way. The point is that imposing a literal meaning on mythology\* violates the actual purpose of mythology and compels one to deny facts and twist other facts and words in order to reconcile statements that are clearly contradictory. - In the anthropological sense of a story told to express a truth held by a people. Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:2 tells one story that demonstrates to the believers that God created order from chaos, matter from non-matter, and that the Creation was good. It was not the result of warring gods creating the world as a byproduct of their feuds or that it is built by a sub-god who was evil. Genesis 2:3 _ff_ tells a completely different story regarding the way that God created the world for the use of humanity and that humanity has always failed to measure up to God’s promise and delight. Much later theology has accreted to those stories (for good or ill), but imposing a 19th century view of literalness on them that requires a reconciliation of theology and science is simply a way to create non-believers who can see that the discrepancies are mopre real than the claims for reconciliation. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/126 "2008-02-09T14:24:20Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Since I generally do not read crackpots, even well-intentioned ones, I admit to having missed that particularly odd concept, before. I’m not sure which is scarier: that someone else actually did combine all the errors you have presented as some sort of reconciliation of Genesis and science or that more people than you have actually accepted his errors as presenting a valid argument. I see no conflict between Genesis and science because I do not see Genesis as a scientific tract, but distorting the words of Genesis to match up to misunderstood physics and cosmology is just not the way to go. You are still stuck with water existing before light, light and darkness existing as separate entities without a source, and “days” occurring when no physical matter exists. \*::: shrug ::: \* [/QUOTE] I’ll ask it again, then. Did Adam exist? ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/127 "2008-02-09T14:30:44Z")
No. But what’s that got to do with the price of bread? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/128 "2008-02-09T14:31:46Z")
[QUOTE=the raindog] I’ll ask it again, then. Did Adam exist? [/QUOTE] If you are going to ignore what I post, why should I respond? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/129 "2008-02-09T14:40:18Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] If you are going to ignore what I post, why should I respond? [/QUOTE] Because you didn’t answer the question. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/130 "2008-02-09T14:43:50Z")
[QUOTE=the raindog] Do you believe Adam existed? [/QUOTE] Please define or describe “Adam.” ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/131 "2008-02-09T14:45:10Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] My personal beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. There are theists, (Jewish and Christian, to stay in the frame of refereence of this thread), who accept evolutionary science without any problem. They may take “Adam” to be the first human or proto-human to develop self-awareness and be infused with a soul. They may take “Adam” to be a general reference to “first” (and, therefore, all subsequent) humans. They may view the mythology of the two separate Creation myths at the beginning of Genesis in some other way. The point is that imposing a literal meaning on mythology\* violates the actual purpose of mythology and compels one to deny facts and twist other facts and words in order to reconcile statements that are clearly contradictory. - In the anthropological sense of a story told to express a truth held by a people. Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:2 tells one story that demonstrates to the believers that God created order from chaos, matter from non-matter, and that the Creation was good. It was not the result of warring gods creating the world as a byproduct of their feuds or that it is built by a sub-god who was evil. Genesis 2:3 _ff_ tells a completely different story regarding the way that God created the world for the use of humanity and that humanity has always failed to measure up to God’s promise and delight. Much later theology has accreted to those stories (for good or ill), but imposing a 19th century view of literalness on them that requires a reconciliation of theology and science is simply a way to create non-believers who can see that the discrepancies are mopre real than the claims for reconciliation. [/QUOTE] I’ll tell you what; I’ll ask a _different_ question. Did the OT, and the later Christian Jews and Gentiles, believe in a literal Adam? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/132 "2008-02-09T14:45:57Z")
[QUOTE=the raindog] Because you didn’t answer the question. [/QUOTE] > [@tomndebb](#): > > My personal beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion has to do with reconciling the words of Genesis (not the beliefs of tomndebb) to the scientific observations regarding the development of life with a slight hijack into the OP’s current beliefs regarding the Creation myths. My beliefs continue to be irrelevant to that discussion. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/133 "2008-02-09T14:46:27Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Please define or describe “Adam.” [/QUOTE] The Adam described in the bible, with the attending details about his creation, wife, kids etc. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/134 "2008-02-09T14:48:50Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] This discussion has to do with reconciling the words of Genesis (not the beliefs of tomndebb) to the scientific observations regarding the development of life with a slight hijack into the OP’s current beliefs regarding the Creation myths. My beliefs continue to be irrelevant to that discussion. [/QUOTE] OK then, does it seem clear to you (it certainly does to me) that the views that the OT Jews, and NT Jews/Christians were in error about the Adam account? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/135 "2008-02-09T14:50:05Z")
[QUOTE=the raindog] I’ll tell you what; I’ll ask a _different_ question. Did the OT, and the later Christian Jews and Gentiles, believe in a literal Adam? [/QUOTE] Many did. (The more interesting question is whether earlier Jewish believers believe in a literal adam. 😛 ) Augiustine of Hippo, on Genesis: > [@](#): > > _de Genesis_ > Chapter 19 > > Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/136 "2008-02-09T14:52:19Z")
While I peruse your cite, tell me what you mean about earlier Jewish believers. Earlier than what specifically? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/137 "2008-02-09T14:58:19Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Many did. (The more interesting question is whether earlier Jewish believers believe in a literal adam. 😛 ) Augiustine of Hippo, on Genesis: [/QUOTE] Very interesting cite. Please elaborate on it please, as I don’t want to assume what your point is. (for I do not to remove the wrong organs from you. 😉 ) ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/138 "2008-02-09T15:17:05Z")
Microevolution and macroevolution are bad terms. The usual sets of definitions I see offered put microevolution synonymous with adaptation, and macroevolution as synonymous with speciation. Another common interpretation is the idea that they’re simple timescale prefixes: macro- is just a whole lot of microevolution. All of this is bedded in the understanding that we’re talking about visible changes. The problem with these definitions is that the imply things about biological evolution that are not particularly accurate. Visible differences between populations of organisms imply little about the barriers to gene flow between those populations (i.e., whether they’re different species). Mutations effecting interfertility can have no obvious physiological effects. Speciation can occur and go undetected until the inability to share genes with parent populations causes the genetic structure of the new species to diverge. And “barriers to gene flow” is a fuzzy concept. What if you have a species with two distinct subpopulations that are capable of interbreeding, but mating pairs with a member from each group have reduced fecundity? What if it’s only 10% less? What if it’s 50%? 80%? Are they different species at 80% reduction in interfertility? Or only at 100%? What if they _can_ interbreed, but don’t for a poorly understood reason? That said, this is a problem of terminology, not biology. Life has no obligation to fit into the neat little boxes we define for it. There are two essential questions being asked by the OP. “How did we evolve?” and “Did we evolve?” The first has a lot of controversial answers. Scientists bicker about it constantly. A new fossil is discovered that requires revisions to evolutionary theories that have been in textbooks for decades. To be replaced with an updated evolutionary theory. Why only an evolutionary theory? Because the answer to the second question is “Yes.” The pattern of genetic similarities observable across all life on earth is of the type predicted by evolution from a common ancestor. It’s not necessary to know the entire biological history of every species, charted from the common ancestor through every intermediate to each modern species alive today, to know that every species alive today evolved from a common ancestor. It’s a settled question that things evolved, so most folks are more interested in the “just so stories” of _how_ things evolved. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/139 "2008-02-09T15:36:46Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Many did. (The more interesting question is whether earlier Jewish believers believe in a literal adam. 😛 ) Augiustine of Hippo, on Genesis: [/QUOTE] _Many?_ Wouldn’t that be _All?_ Is there any contemporary account that indicates that _any_ believed Adam to be mythical? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890/140 "2008-02-09T16:43:00Z")
Psst… **nofloyd** …preview is free. Don’t be afraid to use it. And square brackets () work better than angle brackets (\<\>). Try 'em, you’ll like 'em. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interested-in-proof-of-macroevolution/435890.md?page=8)