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


Oh for fuck sake.

11/7/2012 6:17:10 AM

Doubting Thomas

"Species are changing over time but that's not evolution."


Not really fundy, just stupid.

What's the difference?

11/7/2012 6:38:59 AM

Mystik Spiral

@mellenORL: I love the term clabber-brain, and will begin using it when the opportunity arises (sadly, much TOO often).

@Jezebel's Evil Sister: Congrats! Equality has only taken over 200 years, but we're getting there.

11/7/2012 9:31:46 AM

Joe Mama

We at least have them admitting that changes within a species happens. It's just taking so damn long for them to admit that changes within a species over time leads to new species.

11/7/2012 10:48:31 AM


What you would call evolution isn't relevant though, is it? As used in the biological sciences evolution has a specific definition: aa change in the genetic composition of a population over time (or more prescisely, any change in the frequency of alleles in a population over generations). As this has been observed directly in real-time, in living populations in the wild, we've directly observed evolution occurring.

11/7/2012 10:57:21 AM


Werewold, if the other brain cell was working they'd probably disagree with each other.

11/7/2012 10:58:14 AM


Did he just say "Just because a species is undergoing Darwinian mechanisms does not mean it is really experiencing evolution."?

11/7/2012 11:42:49 AM


Macroevolution is just an accumulation of microevolutions and you have just admitted variances of the genetical pool of a specie and the existence of "Darwinian mechanisms ",i.e. natural selection.

At last the 1930s U.S.S.R. scientists who were distorting the reality to suit ideological purposes had the excuse to not wanting to end in a Gulag or shot.

11/7/2012 1:28:31 PM


@capello moderno

"Nothing fundie about this."

Whatever good shit you're smoking I want some.

11/7/2012 2:31:56 PM

under lab conditions, scientist studying the evolution of bacteria got a bacteria that uses glucose for energy, or "food", to start using fructose as energy as well(the bacteria in question could not process fructose originally, no change in control group).

how? by introducing them to an environment that had required amounts of glucose for the bacteria culture to survive, and fructose. about a 50/50 split. after a certain amount of time, they moved bacteria in the culture to a new environment that was predominantly fructose. they found that, most of the bacteria died shortly after the change, but some did not. some had spontaneously(seemingly) gained the ability to process fructose. after allowing the bacteria to reproduce and introducing it to an all fructose environment, and the bacteria continued to reproduce, consuming fructose for energy.

this is a perfect example of how evolution works. a stress is placed on a being, and individuals with accidentally mutated genes that provide a beneficial trait which makes them able to deal with their environment better, tend to survive. the first bacteria that gained the ability probably couldn't do it very well. a very low efficiency would be probable. but that bacteria can now survive just that much easier, and when nothing is threatening its reproductive potential, it will thrive. after enough time passes, and enough generations, the fructose consuming bacteria will get better at it, until they have a fully developed ability to process fructose efficiently.

you could not call the fructose consuming bacteria the same species as the original, as the original could not process fructose, the control group did not see any changes, and you know beyond all doubt that no fructose consuming bacteria went IN to the petri dish(lab conditions, after all), so where did they come from? evolution is the only logical explanation(that does not depend on the existence of sky-daddy)

11/7/2012 3:06:49 PM


"Just because a species is undergoing Darwinian mechanisms does not mean it is really experiencing evolution.

This reminds me of a FSTDT quote from a few years ago, on the emergence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The fundie said:

"That's not evolution. That's adaptation through mutation and natural selection."

11/7/2012 3:41:18 PM


"Just because a species is undergoing Darwinian mechanisms does not mean it is really experiencing evolution."

Maybe the species were just having irregular brain farts.

11/7/2012 10:37:33 PM

Felix Wilde

Certain bacteria consume nylon (a substance which has existed for well under a century). A fungus found in Chernobyl consumes radiation from the contaminated environment (just google "radiophagic fungus"; it's awesome! It uses melanin like plants use chlorophyll, so it's black in colour). A mosquito exists which lives only in subterranean train systems (the London Underground mosquito). Genetic analysis of these species has revealed their lineage and, along with other studies, that they are unique species.

I don't have a plant example, but that's three kingdoms. Off the top of my head, I can think of three species from three different kingdoms which are adapted to environments humans have made in recorded history. They could not have existed until very recently.

Care to explain how that's not macroevolution?

PS - Does anyone know if there is an online list of recently-evolved species? I'd love to peruse it for other interesting examples. Especially animals, as they tend to be the most striking examples. I like how the human head louse and body louse seem to be mid-speciation at the moment too... Not capable of breeding due to behaviour, but still genetically compatible. And of course ring species are similarly astonishing examples... Damn, biology is so much fun!

11/8/2012 3:23:27 AM


There's that "evolution" ball again, heading for my goal. I'll just shove the goalposts out of the way for a moment. The referee won't notice and neither will the other team or the fans.

Attempted strawman argument, more than usually blatant.

11/9/2012 4:38:19 AM


@#1466367 John_in_Oz,

He hasn;t really hit on anything. The key to your point is the part about where the process "ends up". Evolution doesn't end up anywhere, you can't pick a beginning point or an end point in time, or some sort of genetic target. It just keeps happening. So if the gene distribution changes, then changes back for a while, then goes off on a tangent, then returns to something similar to where you started looking, it's still evolution. Period.

11/9/2012 11:59:18 AM


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

Then there's you, "microbrain".

"Polaris"? More like "Brown Dwarf" or "Random Tiny Asteroid".

Forget that...."space junk".

I would've called him "black hole" but a black hole would've not applied by the mere virtue of it's awesomeness.

11/11/2012 7:14:41 AM


How can you tell if a person is a creationist? They say something like this, which no scientist would ever say:

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

2/11/2013 12:04:29 AM


The saddest thing here is Polaris here has reversed the common creationist argument. It's Micro evolution creationists accept and Macro evolution that they believe is impossible. If you can't even get creationist arguments right whats the point?

2/19/2015 9:23:19 AM

What is the difference between walking across your kitchen and walking across the country?

So you accept that you can walk across your kitchen (micro evolution) but you can't walk across the country(macro evolution)? What is the mechanism that stops you from walking across the country?

There's only EVOLUTION.

2/19/2015 10:12:33 AM

"Just because a species is undergoing Darwinian mechanisms does not mean it is really experiencing evolution."

Just because you're a fucking idiot and don't understand evolution does not mean it isn't happening.

2/19/2015 10:14:27 AM

1 2 | top: comments page