Not really. Macroevolution is simply a “large scale” view of evolution. If microevolution happens, macroevolution happens. Macro- topics include such things as differential species survival (e.g., in mass extinctions), the appearance of the fossil record, the origins of evolutionary novelties, evolutionary trends, and so on. The debate remains how such things occur, not whether they occur.
And, for the record, speciation is something of a bridge between the micro- and macro- level. You can find definitions that include it within both scales. Often, the process of speciation is a topic within the realm of microevolution, while patterns of speciation among different or related groups are a macroevolutionary topic.
False analogy. The Bohr model while incorrect still gives an approximation to atomic physics modelling. Creationism or ID does no such thing. Instead it gives a wholly incorrect approximation of reality that’s based on religous belief.
I wasn’t suggesting teaching Creationism instead of Evolution. I recall learning a lot of biology in high school while barely touching on Evolution and never bringing up Creationism. My analogy was not between the Bohr model and Creationism but between the Bohr Model and teaching Biology without Evolution.
I finished school in 1982. Evolution was covered (though likely that was covered back in the mid 70s when bilogy was introduced). I never even heard of the terms macroevolution and microevolution until I read this thread and I was in an advanced placement biology course in 1977 (my last biology). We learned a lot about plants and animals and how they function and are built but evolution rarely touched on any of our studies. We knew of it of course but most of our studies involved direct interaction with plants and animals. I suppose bilogical theory was never well taught. Creationism was never even mentioned.
Gah. I was rather hoping no one would pick up on this story.
Hubby is from Kentucky, and there have only been two times in my life when I wished I could exchange my home state for his. A few months ago with the anti-SSM law, and yesterday.
You know it’s bad when an Ohioan wants to be known as a Kentuckian.
As for the School Board getting kicked out–I wouldn’t count on it. I think Ohio may rule the country in terms of apathy. I can’t remember the state getting worked up about anything that didn’t involve the Buckeyes.
There aren’t enough roll-eye smilies in the world…
Political expediency rarely makes for good choices in the science classroom. Just because there are people who don’t know anything about biology who find it controversial does not mean that we shouldn’t teach evolution.
I still find your analogy incorrect for that reason. It isn’t possible to teach the details of the quantum mechanical solution of the hydrogen atom to high school students. Evolutionary theory can, however, be easily grasped by high school students. Seeing as how evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, there doesn’t seem to be a good rationale for avoiding the subject.
It’s not akin to teaching the Bohr atom, it would be akin to ignoring atomic theory completely.
I think the problem is the word “just” in that statement. Theories are about as good as you get in science. The implication is that evolution is just a hypothesis, which is much weaker. Evolution has graduated from hypothesis to theory a long time ago.
Well my kids, in California, learn a lot of non-US geography and history, including an extensive section on African kingdoms. When I was in school 35 years ago this was far more true - we learned Egypt, middle East, a tiny bit about China, and everything else was Eurocentric.
As for the Earth going around the Sun, I assure you everyone learned it. The problem is the lack of interest in these things. If it were as uncool not to know the basic facts of science as it is not to know the basic facts of football, we’d be a lot better off.
robo, your AP biology notwithstanding, what people have been trying to communicate to you, with varying degrees of (im)politeness is that, as regards science–specifically biology–your comments reveal an extremely limited understanding of the principals under discussion.
Evolution is a scientific fact (more on this in the next paragraph). As such, it’s an absolutely necessary element of a minimal education in the modern world. To the extent that public education relies upon standardized tests for “quality control,” the teaching of evolution* has* been mandated by the government.
Consider the following theories: gravitational theory, color theory, music theory, evolutionary theory. Would you say that “music is just a theory”? Probably not. Evolution is not a theory; evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory is a system for understanding evolution, like music theory is a system for understanding music.
To say the “evolution is just theory,” then, is to reveal a misunderstanding of the scientific usage of the word theory—(Webster’s: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.)—and instead you assume the more “colloquial” definition (An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.).
Well for me, I would not call Evolution a scientific fact - likely if I studied it more I would come to that conclusion. I just see it as the best theory that we have. I like to keep an open mind about things that I don’t have a significant amount of information about. I understand the basic premise behind Evolution and it makes a lot of sense to me that that is indeed how things work. On the other hand, I have had significant studies in most of the physical sciences. I have learned enough from those to be able to apply the term fact in relation to them. Even then, a part of me sees scientific progress as not discovering truth but redefining it. I view the world with a very skeptical eye so I don’t apply the word “fact” to things that I don’t have direct involvement with.
Hmmm. Do you accept the scientific consensus regarding the structure of the solar system? or are you skeptical until you can visit each planet individually?
My point is that there are PLENTY of scientific–and other–facts that you take at face value. Or are you a Holocaust denier, not having been there?
Suffice it to say that, your imprimatur notwithstanding, evolution is, indeed, a biological fact. Your choice not to educate yourself in that area has no effect on this of course.
Is there anything you do call a scientific fact? I would have said a scientific fact is the best theory that we have - perhaps with the provisos that it is much better than any other theory available, and explains most of the evidence. Evolution by natural selection fits this as much as any other scientific fact does, (ok, things in biology and astronomy can be less certain than phsyics and chemistry).
Am I correct in feeling that the terms “macroevolution” and “microeveloution” have been placed into popular use (in fact the terms were coined in by entomologist Yuri Filipchenko in 1927) primarily by creationists? That scientists actually do not make typically that distinction, there being no clear location to draw the line (among other reasons)?
From www.talkorigins.org (a website that is a godsend; I can’t heap enough praise on the volunteers who keep this site going):
As the article and others in this thread have mentioned, the primary thrust here seems to be towards opening the science curriculum for criticisms of evolutionary theory – it apparently does not specifically invoke ID (depending on who you believe), but instead looks to poke scientific holes in evolution.
This is a powerful technique – it is not anti-science on the surface, and given the current state of science education in the country, will only confuse and further bruden teachers, thus making them avoid teaching evolution. In the case that the teacher does present evolution with “criticism”, it will leave students with the impression that there is scientific controversy here, when in fact there is not (at least not on the level of whether evolution happens or not).
Needless to say, they are trying to advance ID as a legitimate criticism, when in fact it is not. But that is not the important point – the point is that they are trying to set up roadblocks to the teaching and intellectual acceptance of evolution. An added bonus is they can shriek that scientists are trying to “suppress dissent” when they try to stop these attacks, or that scientists are against “academic freedom.”
Obviously this is a big change from Kansas and other school boards who used to just come out and put their cards on the table, calling for inclusion of creationism in their curricula, or more commonly calling for omission of evolution from curricula and standardized tests. It is much more subtle, much more dangerous, much more likely to succeed, and much harder to quash. Has this been used before?
I’m all for teaching problems with evolutionary theory in school – go right ahead and talk about Dawkins versus Gould, about differences in mutation clocks, about genic conservation versus conserved noncoding regions, about determination of a neutral score for functional conservation, about the nature of large scale genomic instability and reorganization, about genetic drift and so forth. These are some of the debate points in evolution; obviously no high school gets near to these things (besides perhaps a word on punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism).
Am I correct in feeling that you either missed or ignored my earlier post (#21) on the distinction? The underlying mechanism of the two might well be the same but the terms are valid, and are used by evolutionary biologists (see, for example, this [.pdf] paper from the Journal of Evolutionary Biology) to differentiate between different scales of change.
Sure, you can try to study earthquakes by starting with the motions of individual atoms, but you aren’t likely to get far by doing so. Instead, you look at larger scale interactions between continental plates, the geology of a region, and so on. Same thing with studying phenomena such as mass extinctions (and the patterns thereof), evolutionary trends, and the emergence of novel features. There’s only so much you can do starting from genes.
It is not the case, however, that these terms represent two different kinds of evolution, as they are commonly used by creationists. Natural selection and gene flow through populations underlies the evolution of life, but when you step back and look at the Tree of Life you begin to see interesting patterns emerge that seem to be “bigger” than can be easily explained from the level of competition between individuals.
Not that I personally dispute Evolution, but in all fairness you can’t really say that.
From the article you linked:
Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact.
Well of course they do. The same way creationists believe God to be 100% indisputable fact.
Given the number of scientists in this thread I’m surprised no-one has already trotted out the old axiom: You can never prove a theory. Only disprove it. 1+1=2 only until 1+1=3.
There is innumerable supporting evidence for the theory of evolution. Which is great until you get the Second Coming Of Christ or some Galatic Super Being dumping us sea monkeys out of his tank.
