Quote# 90339

Well there are two types of evolution: macroevolution, which is much easier to accept, and microevolution.

The key with macroevolution is taking the evidence and extrapolating a pattern.

Microevolution is more about taking the theory of evolution and trying to assert it is happening currently in a certain species over a very limited amount of data from genetic divergence within a control group over time period significantly less than what should be used to determine if evolution is occurring.

[LOL, macro and micro refer to our perspective of the event, not the process. Don't start this tired shit. Microevolution -is- macroevolution. Titl the lens into closer focus, pan out over wider focus. End of.]

Going back and forth between genetic changes is not what I call evolution. Just because a species is undergoing Darwinian mechanisms does not mean it is really experiencing evolution.

Polaris, Atheist Forums 45 Comments [11/6/2012 12:46:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 54
Submitted By: Stimbo

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom


Well too bad because that's what people who study evolution for a living call evolution. This is a new low in creationist tactics. Argument from "I don't accept the proper definition and insist on everyone agreeing to my ridiculous strawman."

11/6/2012 12:58:46 PM

what the fuck is a darwinian mechanism? ive never heard of it before so i assume it is bullshit, but assuming its not, i would say that a "darwinian mechanism" is a slight change in the genetics of an organism. now multiple slight changes is essentially one larger change, or speciation, or evolution, or macroevolution, or microevolution (as there is no difference between the two)

11/6/2012 1:04:12 PM


I wasted four years getting a Biology degree. Polaris (the poster not the star) just proved he deserves a Nobel Prize. And he was just using one brain cell. Imagine if the other brain cell was working...

11/6/2012 1:13:48 PM


"Going back and forth between genetic changes is not what I call evolution. Just because a species is undergoing Darwinian mechanisms does not mean it is really experiencing evolution."

My favorite answer to anti-evolutionists?Antibiotic resistant bacteria, clabber-brain!

Holy F@ck Batman! MRSA now has a spin doctor posting on creationist forums! It's gonna take over the world!

11/6/2012 1:26:19 PM

Another clueless creationist.

11/6/2012 1:34:52 PM


Shame is this buffoon thinks himself/herself a visionary genius.

11/6/2012 1:44:14 PM

capello moderno

Nothing fundie about this.

11/6/2012 1:45:50 PM

Old Viking

I, too, reject many well-proven concepts, and make up my own definitions. This simplifies my life and leaves me quite placid.

11/6/2012 1:47:17 PM


If I understand your argument correctly:

"If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it can't possibly be a duck because no matter how much duck-ness it might have, it's not enough to convince a vegetable that it isn't just a collection of minerals."

That about cover it?

If evolution and Natural Selection is not happening, please explain the success of hybridization and GMOs. Then please have yourself checked for Neanderthal DNA. It might explain a few things. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17527318

11/6/2012 1:48:23 PM


Genetic changes ARE evolution. But then, just because we provide you with good, solid information does not mean you are really experiencing any learning.

11/6/2012 2:00:53 PM

Rabbit of Caerbannog

Classic "No except yes" scenario.

11/6/2012 2:17:29 PM

Thinking Allowed

Someone didn't take biology.

11/6/2012 2:22:34 PM


You're not actually a real biologist are you?

11/6/2012 2:22:48 PM


He's less to have not having taken biology and more like he received the reverse of what's an education in biology.

11/6/2012 2:27:32 PM

Creedence Leonore Gielgud

And what exactly is the mechanism preventing this alleged "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution" over time?

mellenORLMy wrote: "favorite answer to anti-evolutionists?Antibiotic resistant bacteria, clabber-brain!"

Oh I got one even better: bacteria (Flavobacterium, Sp. K172) that digests nylon, a substance that has only existed, artificially, since the 1930s.

11/6/2012 3:04:10 PM

David B.

Hmm, usually you get creationist nitwits claiming that microevolution is fine and dandy and obviously how God does things, while macroevolution is a vile lie from Satan's lower lips. Or something like, I try not to listen too closely to creationists in case I get some stupid stuck in my ear and miss something important and informative.

This guy's saying, "Macroevolution? Meh! But microevolution? LOL, U crazy dude! Like small changes ever did anything!"

It's easier to accept that birds are the living descendants of therapod dinosaurs, but not that TB becomes resistant to antibiotics? Bizarre!

11/6/2012 4:23:21 PM

J. James

This person has absolutely no idea what they're blithering on about.

11/6/2012 4:38:33 PM


He raises an interesting question.
The example I'm thinking of was written about by Olivia Judson in the New York Times. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/a-natural-selection/
She writes under the pen name 'Dr Tatiana'. Do yourself a favour and read her articles. Read her book. Watch the TV episodes. Read her academic papers.
Her example came from the same Galapagous Islands which famously inspired Darwin. Weather causes changes in the food supply which causes changes in the relative abundance of genes within the species. That change is what Dawkins in 'the Greatest Show on Earth' p33 defines as "what we mean by evolution". However, weather changes, and the genetic effects change with it. The relative abundance of genes shifts back and forth. Has the species evolved? Dawkins himself did limit evolution to systematic increase or decrease in the frequency of genes.
Judson calls it evolution, as I would as well, but if a species' gene pool ends up the same as what it started with, even though it has been subjected to Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection of genes, has it evolved? And if not, can we claim to have observed 'evolution in action'?
I'm going to end up disagreeing with him, but he's raised an important nuance to be aware of when discussing evolution.
If we think of evolution as the production of novel alleles that then spread through the population by Darwinian natural selection, then presumably he's right that we haven't yet observed it in action. Of course, for that to be true, the alleles for the effects that others mention above, would have to have been already present in the population at some frequency.

11/6/2012 4:54:20 PM


I know there is very little chance of Polaris, but other posters may like to read my suggestions here.

For irrefutable evidence of evolution, Polaris, please read pages 113 to 133 of Richard Dawkins book, "The Greatest Show on Earth." Alternatively, if the Mathematics is too much for you, please read pages 133 to 141 of the same book. Please read it more than once. I know I had to.

11/6/2012 8:18:56 PM


Um, yes it does.

11/6/2012 9:25:31 PM

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

11/6/2012 11:13:50 PM


I thought evolution is a Darwinian mechanism.

11/6/2012 11:33:59 PM


Not really fundy, just stupid.

11/7/2012 12:58:54 AM

Mister Spak

"Going back and forth between genetic changes is not what I call evolution. Just because a species is undergoing Darwinian mechanisms does not mean it is really experiencing evolution."

Just because a carriage with an internal combustion engine can move without a horse pulling it doesn't mean horseless carriages exist.

11/7/2012 5:53:00 AM

Jezebel's Evil Sister

No punk-arse homophobe can bring me down today because I'm basking in pride for my true blue state as Maryland has become the first state to approve same-sex marriage through popular vote (52 to 48) Woo Hoo! The tide has turned.

11/7/2012 6:08:35 AM

1 2 | top: comments page