|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
17th January 2013, 10:51 AM | #1 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,498
|
Don't Creationists Accept Common Ancestry?
If you believe that all humans (homo sapiens) are descended from the mythical characters of Adam and Eve, you accept the fundamental concept of common ancestry (aka microevolution).
Now just swap out the ancient religious myth that has no evidence to corroborate it, and insert the fossil record (and genetic evidence confirming our relationship to lower primates that homo sapiens evolved from), and VOILA! - you've accepted evolution. Don't complain - you've already accepted common ancestry as a valid concept. We're just supplying the evidence for it, without apologies as to what that evidence shows. Tell me where I'm wrong, creationists. |
__________________
Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny. - Liszt Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful. - Ian Faith |
|
17th January 2013, 11:38 AM | #2 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 51
|
I was under the impression that the issue wasn't that creationists don't accept microevolution (because many do), but that they don't accept macroevolution.
|
17th January 2013, 11:44 AM | #3 |
Ardent Formulist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
|
|
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. |
|
17th January 2013, 12:03 PM | #4 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Van Squad
Posts: 1,484
|
|
17th January 2013, 12:03 PM | #5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Quote:
First, as you said, is the timeframe. YECs believe in a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth, hardly enough time for evolution to have produced the diversity we see today. Most believe there was an enormous bottle-neck after that (the Deluge), which constricts diversification even further. Second, there's the definition of "kinds". Note that no YE Creationist will define this term--they'll use it to mean whatever they want at that time. This contrasts sharply with the scientific Creationists of the 1800s and 1900s (yes, those did exist--gave talks at scientific conferences and everything, and were often widely respected, even in science; for example, Richard Owen was a die-hard Creationist, but also a fantastic taxonomist and anatomist [well, until he went loony]). Those older Creationists were quite specific on where the line was, though they each drew it at different points. Gould's essay "A Tale of Three Pictures" illustrates this point perfectly. |
17th January 2013, 12:07 PM | #6 |
I lost an avatar bet.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,781
|
I believe in neither creationism nor the Bible, but if you are sincerely looking for an answer to your question, then I have picked up some ideas at RaptureReady.com
[instructions; pick and choose whatever point is most convenient for the argument at hand. Using conflicting points is acceptable] -the fossils look very old but there are not really all that old -the fossil record was created by Satan to be misleading -evolution can only change things within a "kind" e.g. cat is a kind, so all species of domestic, wild, and large cats could have sprung from one pair of cats getting off the Ark. Thus lower primates are not in any way related to mankind. (Renaiconna and Dinwar have already mentioned this point). -there is a conspiracy among scientists to suppress the information showing that 5000 years is enough time for ultra-rapid micro-evolution, thus aggle-rithm is either a dupe or a conspirator. -the Bible says it, I believe it, end of story QED, evolution is both a lie and the religion of the insane. Checkmate, atheists. |
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly. |
|
17th January 2013, 12:21 PM | #7 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by Ladewig
No one has yet explained to me how you can have sessile marine critters floating down on top of terrestrial critters, or any of the other weird things anyone who's actually studied the rock see.
Quote:
|
17th January 2013, 12:26 PM | #8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
There's a YouTube video somewhere of thunderf00t having a long discussion with Ray Comfort. In it he walks Kirk through evolution, step by step, and Comfort agrees with him that it's perfectly reasonable and is, indeed, what happens. He seems genuinely gobsmacked when thunderf00t explains to him that, by agreeing to everything he's just said, Comfort has agreed that Darwinian evolution is true. He doesn't know how to answer.
Didn't do a single thing to change his views. He was soon releasing videos that were as if he'd never had that conversation. |
17th January 2013, 12:31 PM | #9 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
There's a YouTube video somewhere of thunderf00t having a long discussion with Ray Comfort. In it he walks Kirk through evolution, step by step, and Comfort agrees with him that it's perfectly reasonable and is, indeed, what happens. He seems genuinely gobsmacked when thunderf00t explains to him that, by agreeing to everything he's just said, Comfort has agreed that Darwinian evolution is true. He doesn't know how to answer.
Didn't do a single thing to change his views. He was soon releasing videos that were as if he'd never had that conversation. |
17th January 2013, 12:58 PM | #10 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,280
|
What's the difference between Macro and Micro Evolution ?
Is it just time ? i.e. small change = micro evolution and lots of small changes over time = macro evolution. |
17th January 2013, 02:28 PM | #11 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
That's the million dollar question.
Problem is, there are multiple definitions. Creationists and biologists use Microevolution to mean evolution within populations that doesn't lead to speciation--things like, for example, moths changing colors due to the change in tree color, or fish becoming smaller as humans catch and eat the largest ones. Macroevolution is evolution that does cause speciation. The issue is, Creationists think that macroevolution is some unique, as-yet undetermined process. Biologists point to ring species as proof that it's not; macroevolution is merely an accumulation of microevolutionary changes. The logic being, if you wipe out any population between the two end-members of a ring species you end up with two species--but right now, all the changes are demonstrably microevolutionary changes, as any single population can breed with any of its neighbors. This is a critical failure of Creationism: they have never presented a coherent definition of what macroevolution would be to them. They merely postulate, in the absence of data (which is being generous), that it can't happen, without giving any justification for that conclusion. If you ask me, the reason is they're doing science in reverse: they define macroevolution as impossible, then looke for reasons to support that notion. Complicating this all is paleontology. In paleontology, microevolution refers to speciation (we simply can't SEE adaptations that don't lead to speciation). Macroevolution refers to evolution above the species level--things like the evolution of families or phyla. Chanellization of bauplans is an example of a problem in macroevolution sensu paleontology. Frankly, it's gotten to the point where most scientists have given up on the terms. I don't know of any paper in paleontology that I've read recently that includes the terms, except one that attempted to address this issue in order to make the terms viable again (and, in my opinion, failed). There's simply too much conflict about what it means for the terms to be useful. |
17th January 2013, 04:21 PM | #12 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
Macroevolution is microevolution with a long time thrown in. Paleontologists don't use the distinction.
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
17th January 2013, 06:02 PM | #13 |
Philosophile
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
|
Aha!
I expect that we can also use the argument of flu viruses to show that evolution occurs. In fact, people have. Not only that, but didn't Darwin begin by showing that breeds of dogs had changed over time and explained that it is but a small step to seeing that such things can happen in the wild too under natural rather than human selection? Not only that, but isn't it patently obvious to pretty much all Bible readers that certain cattle and certain strains of wheat produce better offspring? Does any of this reasoning make the slightest difference to Creationists? No, not really. I suppose there are some for whom the penny will drop but most of them have invested too much to start questioning it. |
17th January 2013, 07:09 PM | #14 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
Most (but certainly not all) creationists seem to accept most of evolutionary theory, most of the time. But, most of those would rather not admit that, nor even realize it.
There is no real difference between macro and micro scale evolution. One is just the results of lots of the other. But, that's not how it's seen by someone who insists there must be a dividing line, somewhere. A lot of macro-scale ideas are re-worded in Creationist terms, to suit their needs. For example, the discoveries of Evo/Devo being recast into the terminology of "Front Loading". Evo/Devo makes progress in science, through examining predictions that emerge from it. Front Loading does not. But, the general concepts they attempt to cover are roughly the same. In the case of Adam and Eve being the decendants of all humans: To the Creationist, they would say: "Yeah, but we're all still humans. We didn't come from monkeys.", which is where they would like to draw the line at that point. (Some would go so far as to say that only humans have a "soul", whatever that means.) Technically, contemporary monkeys and humans share a common ancestor that was neither a humand nor exactly like contemporary monkeys. But, as long as this isn't recognized by Creationists, I would say they are still lacking in essential knowledge of biology. Therefore, they don't accept the ultimate concept of common ancestry. Even if they actually accept almost all of the ideas around it, most of the time. |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
17th January 2013, 07:34 PM | #15 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
|
17th January 2013, 07:39 PM | #16 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
18th January 2013, 06:01 AM | #17 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
18th January 2013, 06:02 AM | #18 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
18th January 2013, 06:16 AM | #19 |
Ardent Formulist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
|
|
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. |
|
18th January 2013, 06:17 AM | #20 |
Ardent Formulist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
|
|
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. |
|
18th January 2013, 06:48 AM | #21 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,498
|
Any creationists want to jump in here, or should we just call it a win for Team Evolution?
|
__________________
Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny. - Liszt Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful. - Ian Faith |
|
18th January 2013, 01:10 PM | #22 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 920
|
I get the impression that "micro/macro" evolution is to biology what "allopathic" is to medicine.
|
18th January 2013, 01:37 PM | #23 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
I think part of it is how far down the rabbit whole they go. Some creationists do not accept any part of evolution either through ignorance or teaching (example being those who listen to the bastard Ken Ham) and they filter out evolution to the point where I don't even think they know what common ancestry is.
But if they don't block that out and they investigate evolution I think they may make more compromises on the two views. Once presented with evidence of common ancestry I think it's difficult to ignore it. That's how things baraminology popped in (after all the only reason baraminology exists is because those people are trying to fit square pegs in round holes); They accept common ancestry but they don't accept evolution from a single origin. They basically take the cladogram of life and chop off it's roots leaving only the branches they rationalize must account for all life. In this they accept common ancestry to a point often called a barrier. Honestly if you want do explain common ancestry to anyone the best tactic is to avoid the terms micro/macro evolution. To evolutionary biologists the term is meaningless and to creationists its meaning is whatever they say it is. Don't play that game: evolutionists shouldn't try to make it work in common ancestry because it's a ridiculous notion of trying to find a break in the line of a continuous process and say "here's the microevolution and here's the macroevolution". You don't make categorical variables out of continuous data in statistics; why are we doing it in evolution?! |
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers |
|
19th January 2013, 05:53 AM | #24 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
19th January 2013, 07:32 AM | #25 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,600
|
“the fossil record was created by Satan to be misleading”
Do these idiots not realize how much power they grant to Satan. This is nothing less than the ability alter the psychical structure of the univese. If that can be done how can you know if anything is true and not altered by the devil, including your bible. |
19th January 2013, 07:56 AM | #26 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
19th January 2013, 09:07 PM | #27 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,092
|
|
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
19th January 2013, 09:51 PM | #28 |
Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 222
|
As to the bolded I can directly attest to the lack of understanding of this concept in one creationist. In October a coworker and I were sent to an out of town, week long training class. During one of our many conversations over the week the subject of evolution came up and though I tried my best I could not get him to grasp this concept. No matter what I said in his eyes that ancestor is a monkey and he kept going back to the argument of if we both evolved from monkeys then why do monkeys still exist? After over an hour of going around in circles I finally had to cut the conversation off by telling him that I was clearly not the person he needed to be speaking with, that if he really wanted to understand he should consult an evolutionary biologist as they would be better able to explain it all off the top of their head or provide easy to understand literature than I could.
The bright side to this story is that he accepted this last answer and didn't try to act like he had somehow scored a victory. It also has led to absolutely no friction between us in the workplace in the three months since. |
__________________
We all believe in silly things. What matters is how silly and how many. -- Guy P. Harrison |
|
19th January 2013, 10:20 PM | #29 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 920
|
Should've asked him how Europeans(/Africans/Asians) still exist if Americans are descended from them.
|
20th January 2013, 01:52 AM | #30 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
It seems Janadele (see the LDS thread) is a creationist.
Did you try the grandfather/cousin analogy, i.e. point out that he's asking the equivalent of "if I'm descended from my cousin why does my cousin still exist?" when in fact both he and his cousin are descended from a common grandfather. |
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett |
|
20th January 2013, 06:02 AM | #31 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
When creationists ask me to explain the gaps in the fossil record I first facepalm, then I tell them to lay out the skeleton of every ancestor between them and Adam. "If you can't do that, NO GAPS ALLOWED, then you don't exist and I will no longer speak with you."
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
20th January 2013, 06:36 AM | #32 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
AvalonXQ is as well, as I recall. JudoBranch, when he pokes his head in.
As for the OP... gotchas don't tend to work, really, I think, but they certainly are fun. Either way, the sad thing about the vast majority of Creationist arguments is that they utterly fail when even basic, say, high school level or lower, understandings of the relevant subject(s) are applied. Not quite as bad but not much better are the reasons that they were accepted in the first place as valid, which tend to fall apart when subjected to scrutiny with critical thinking. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
20th January 2013, 07:19 AM | #33 |
Mafia Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
|
AvalonXQ is one. See this seminal thread from 2008.
|
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen |
|
20th January 2013, 09:14 AM | #34 |
Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 222
|
I tried every analogy I could think of, including similar ones to both of these. Even went so far as to drawing a simplistic representation of branches in the evolutionary tree on a napkin at the restaurant we were eating at, though my admittedly pathetic artistic skills may have been more of a hindrance than help. Thing is, I don't think he was being deliberately obtuse, I think he honestly could not understand my explanations, hence why I suggested he consult someone more qualified than I am (I am an electronics technician btw) if he really wanted to understand the concept.
|
__________________
We all believe in silly things. What matters is how silly and how many. -- Guy P. Harrison |
|
20th January 2013, 11:31 AM | #35 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
|
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers |
|
20th January 2013, 11:52 PM | #36 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
Have you tried anything like this:
A mother has two children, Child 1 and Child 2. Each of them has two children of their own, making Grandchild 1A, Grandchild 1B, Grandchild 2A, and Grandchild 2B. Now, neither Grandchild 1A nor Grandchild 2B look exactly like their grandmother, and don't even look much like each other. How could they both exist?! Someone might argue: But, they're still the same species! To which you reply: And, so were we and the monkeys, a long time ago! Over time, we looked a lot less like each other, as our populations diverged in different enviornments. That is how evolution answers the question, whether you believe in it, or not. |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
21st January 2013, 06:01 AM | #37 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
He did? Can't say I'm sorry. He tried to use rather moronic tactics to poke at me a few times and his arguments were fairly stock creationist, right down to the repetition even after multiple valid counters to his arguments were given without him actually addressing any of them seriously. If I remember correctly at least.
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
21st January 2013, 07:35 AM | #38 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,217
|
|
21st January 2013, 07:47 AM | #39 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
21st January 2013, 02:55 PM | #40 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
There have been a few. That's what drew me here originally. They typically posture for a while, then complain that we're closed-minded when we burry them in evidence, then run away.
As for the grandfather analogy, I really don't like it. The European/American analogy is better. The thing is, a grandfather is a single entity--it's him, right there. Whereas populations are constantly shifting. It's easy to explain subpopulations--anyone who's seen a river with an oxbow lake can appreciate that the fish on both sides are generally the same, but they can't mate. Add small changes to either population, and eventually they become so different that they can't mate anymore, so it won't matter if you mix them, they will have permanently split from each other. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|