EVOLUTION: Tree Of Life

[Nì'awtua Eyktan]

Nothing wrong with a little self-promotion (or a lot).    I liked what you had wrote (+10p for the south park reference).
As a swede is hard to understand the whole controversy about evolution, to me it's like arguing about if the earth is flat or round, or if the moon landing took place.

[Kekerusey]

I should clarify that micro-evolution (aka adaptation) happens and has been witnessed over the years.  I realize that I did not clarify what I meant as far as evolution, which I was referring to macro-evolution.

Ah yes ... the idiotic creationist distinction between micro and macro evolution (sorry, that may sound harsh, but it is absolutely idiotic, an idea driven by religious belief and not by any form of logic, reason or science).

I am glad that you say that macro-evolution is a theory, because there are a LOT of well-known scientists who treat it as scientific law, which I have an issue with.  Since macro-evolution is only a theory, it should be treated as such, and other theories should be considered.  However, people who have suggested ANY other theory, or even mentioned any other theory, have been completely blacklisted from the scientific community.

You are confusing the common usage of the word theory.

Scientific explanations are enshrined in hypotheses & theories and, as I intimated earlier, it is important to stress that a theory is the highest form of scientific explanation and has very little in common having nothing at all to do with its more common usage meaning where the word equates more to a good idea or a wizard wheeze. People who refer to scientific theories as "only a theory" are not being cleaver or in any way fair, they simply expose their ignorance of what science actually is.

The truth is my issue in evolution is not the theory itself, but what it has caused in the scientific community, which is essentially a "Red Scare."  The theory has cost MANY smart scientists jobs that they so rightfully deserve, and kept them from getting such a job again.

I'm not sure what point you're making here? If you're saying that scientists involved in the biological sciences have suffered because they don't accept the theory of evolution then yes, quite rightly so ... whilst I accept that many scientists not involved in the biological/medical sciences may not accept evolution and can still be good scientists (it's actually more complex than that because TOE crosses so many disciplines including chemistry and physics, indeed has been said to be the one theory that glues all of science together) no scientist who claims to be a biologist really deserves to be in that field. Yes, sure, one day evidence may be uncovered that disproves TOE but this is the thing ... if TOE is replaced by a newer theory that more closely fits the facts you can be absolutely sure that it will have many of the same characteristics and will differ more in mechanism than in overall concept.

Sorry to take this off-topic.  The diagram is a really good representation of the theory, and I'm rather glad that you shared it.

If I have misread your post or intent I apologise but it does seem to me that you were saying TOE is "only a theory" and that you were accepting micro-evolution and macro evolution neither of which are truly recognised in TOE ... adaptation (what those dumb creationists call micro-evolution) occurs and basically means small change. Many, many, many small changes over sufficient time (billions of years) results in large changes (speciation and yes "species are a human classification construct) ... that is natural, expected and obviously going to happen so if that is NOT going to happen (as creationists claim) then they MUST identify the mechanism that stops adaptation resulting in speciation in order to stop being regarded, quite rightly, as whack-jobs!

Like I say, if I have misunderstood your post I apologise.

Keke

[Kekerusey]

I found these videos about Micro vs Macro and "it's theory, not a fact".

I loved that second video and posted over at my web site (AtheistsHeaven) and on several other sites ... I will watch the first one later, thanks

Keke

[Nì'awtua Eyktan]

Thought I'd post this image of the hominid family tree.

Spoiler

Here's a picture where you can look up the names.

Spoiler

And this one ofc.

Spoiler

[Kekerusey]

Spoiler

LOL!!! 

Keke

[Eyamsiyu]

Kekerusey, I will be honest, I think you have cleared up a lot of stuff with me.

I think you understood the post correctly.  And yes, I was taught "evolution is bad, don't believe it" kind of thing from creationists...

I apologize for any sort of bad feelings that may have come across from my words... a lot of these posts were made after a long day of hard work, and while I may have been trying to sound intelligent, I suppose I was not.

And I did learn about evolution in a religious setting, and that's why a lot of the terms that I learned (I.E. Micro-evolution) were used in my posts.

I need to clarify one more thing so that I finally can actually sound intelligent and not ignorant: what determines (for a lack of vocabulary on my part) "micro" from "macro" is simply the scale of change that happens.

Again, I apologize for my ignorance (which, BTW, is something I really strive not to be). 

[Kekerusey]

Kekerusey, I will be honest, I think you have cleared up a lot of stuff with me.

So I do have some uses, LOL?

I think you understood the post correctly.  And yes, I was taught "evolution is bad, don't believe it" kind of thing from creationists...

Unfortunately many people are, moreover (even though I don't) they are often taught that you can't be a Christian and be an "evilutionist" yet there are many, many Christians who are precisely that. It's also important that we (the "evilutionists") are not taught that evolution is good as such, it just happens.

I apologize for any sort of bad feelings that may have come across from my words... a lot of these posts were made after a long day of hard work, and while I may have been trying to sound intelligent, I suppose I was not.

No worries, for my part I probably jumped on your post too quickly

I need to clarify one more thing so that I finally can actually sound intelligent and not ignorant: what determines (for a lack of vocabulary on my part) "micro" from "macro" is simply the scale of change that happens.

Well, outside of them not being terms in general scientific use (they are seeping in unfortunately) yes ... micro would equate to adaptation below the level of speciation, macro would equate to the appearance of new species and that is the result of adaptation over an immense amount of time.

Keke

[Kì'eyawn]

Ma Eyamsiyu,

Ngari txe'lan mawey livu, ma tsmukan.  Evolution is a complicated topic, and there's a lot of contradictory information out there.  And i can tell you from experience that even in the scientific community there's debate about the use of these macro/micro terms.  Like Kekerusey said, i see no conflict between religious faith and scientific thought:  For me at least, the two inform and deepen each other; i can't imagine having one without the other.  And you're not ignorant, ma 'eylan.  So let there be no enmity between any of us here; awnga leiu smuktu nìwotx.

[Eyamsiyu]

Irayo, ma Kì'eyawn.

I am curious to learn more about it... but I don't know enough to really hold a good conversation.  So it is with that that I say I'll probably lurk instead of talk on this thread for a while.

[Kì'eyawn]

Kea tìkin, ma Eyamsiyu.

A friend showed me this website run by Berkeley that is very informative.  You might give it a look, and see if it's helpful for you, ma tsmukan.

[Eyamsiyu]

Thank you for the link and the website!

I'll look at it from time to time over the next few days/weeks/etc.  There's simply a LOT of information here... and I would not mind knowing more at all. 

[Kekerusey]

Like Kekerusey said, i see no conflict between religious faith and scientific thought:  For me at least, the two inform and deepen each other; i can't imagine having one without the other. 

Well ... that's not quite what I said, I simply said that there are theists who believe that

Keke

[Payä Tìrol]

People like to categorize things. It's the way we work, and it helps give ideas an overall structure. There's really nothing wrong with categorizing things into micro/macroevolution aside from the unfortunate connotations the creationism movement has imparted. After all, "microevolution" already has more specific names in things like genetic drift, gene flow, allele selection, and to a much lesser extent, mutation.

[Kì'eyawn]

Like Kekerusey said, i see no conflict between religious faith and scientific thought:  For me at least, the two inform and deepen each other; i can't imagine having one without the other. 

Well ... that's not quite what I said, I simply said that there are theists who believe that

Keke

Tslolam.  I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, ma 'eylan.  Ngaytxoa.

[Kekerusey]

There's really nothing wrong with categorizing things into micro/macroevolution aside from the unfortunate connotations the creationism movement has imparted. After all, "microevolution" already has more specific names in things like genetic drift, gene flow, allele selection, and to a much lesser extent, mutation.

Actually I think there is ... quite apart from them being unnecessary it implies that the two are entirely separate and therefore allows them to justify their warped view that micro happens whilst macro doesn't, where in fact (according to standard evolutionary theory) speciation is the result of adaptation, itself the result the mechanisms you refer to.

Keke

[ToktorGrace]

This topic is really interesting - as a student of biology I shall be keeping an eye on this thread.

And way cool diagram