Evolutionist vs Creationist argument

Question

How come evolutionist use micro-evoulution to prove that evolution is right? Yes evolution is right, only on the micro scale. Micro refers to genotypic differences within a species(I can agree, and it can be observed) and macro refers to the phenotypic traits of a species(Never been observed). The Creationist argument against macro-evolution is that the genotypic variations in a species will not necessarily translate into a different phenotypic expression, i.e. another species. This is not addressed and thus it is really very simplistic and false to just say micro and macro are the same with respect to allowance of the time variable.

Thank you for the insights, from a rational creationist.

Answer 1

your argument holds no water...but what is interesting despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution you object based on NO evidence ..none , nada , zip..Testimony by people in a time of total scientific ignorance  year 1---middle ages then trying to use their ideas of how the world goes...well it is very sad at the least. Where is any evidence of any divine thing ? Noah's  ark ? Ark of the covenant ...holy .grail ..what ..? Apparently you place your inspired ideas in opposition to the National Cacademy of Sciences , and The American Association for the Advancement of Science who have stated that cerationism/ID is NOT science and is not even worthy of discussion in a scientific form.....like trying to discuss astronomy with astrologers , or medicine wirth shamans .Before you begin to question evolution you really should learn something about it.....Also it might be instructive for you to see how the Dover Decision handed the creationists  /IDers their butts .Even IDs own experts like Behy admitted that creationism /ID was supernatural and would be comparable to astrology and other "pseudosciences " at best. Read how the evolutionist position was time and time again exonerated from the claptrap ...arguments from personal  incredulity which nowadays seem to be the modus operandi.for creationists...Try to read a little science first then get all your "evidence " and then we'll talk

Answer 2

I expect that, since you need observable science to accept things, then you could explain what you have seen being created. Or are you demanding this only of evolutionary science?

.

If the only process you have observed is "micro-evolution", then this is the only concept you must accept. Or are you accepting creation on non-observed data?

.

Answer 3

So because you believe in observational science and we can't observe macro-evolution in real time, that means macro-evolution does not exist?

Its that type of logic that is threatening the scientific integrity of America (most other countries seem much more acceptable of basic scientific theories).  Also I think you misunderstand what a scientific theory is.  A scientific theory is a way to explain a series of facts (it synthesizes the results of numerous tested hypotheses).  A scientific theory is NOT a wild guess.

Science is the search for predictable truths.  Therefore, observational studies, manipulated experiments, and theoretical modeling are all important for science.  Science cannot persist on one type, especially observational science which is the least scientific of the three methods (nothing is controlled or manipulated so many factors can interact and it can be impossible isolate actual cause and effect).

Answer 4

>"Micro refers to genotypic differences within a species(I can agree, and it can be observed) and macro refers to the phenotypic traits of a species(Never been observed)."

I'm sorry, but codifying your misunderstanding of scientific terms in incorrect ways, and then drawing conclusions from your incorrect re-definitions, is NOT science.

Both microevolution and macroevolution have both genotypic and phenotypic components.   Microevolution is the *analysis* of changes in genotype at or below the species level ... but that absolutely includes natural selection, which can only act on *phenotype*.   Macroevolution is the *analysis* of the changes at or above the species level, but since this includes the process of speciation itself, it also examines the mechanisms of isolation of *genotype* as well as the changes in *phenotype* at higher levels.

>"The Creationist argument against macro-evolution is that the genotypic variations in a species will not necessarily translate into a different phenotypic expression, ..."

But nothing in evolutionary theory (micro- or macro-) says that genotypic variation in a species *NECESSARILY* translates into a different phenotypic expression.  This argument makes no sense at all  as an argument against macroevolution ... because nothing in macroevolution depends on that word "necessarily"!

>"... into a different phenotypic expression, i.e. another species"

Whoa!  Where did equating "phenotypic expression" to "another species" come from?  

Basic genetics says that changes in genotype *CAN* (and often do) produce changes in phenotype (not that it "necessarily" does).  Nobody, not even Creationists, dispute that.   To the extent that changes in genotype do result in changes in phenotype ... *BIG* time can cause *BIG* changes in genotype which can cause *BIG* changes in phenotype.  

But what causes *speciation* is genotypic isolation!   That's when the genotypic changes (regardless of whether they result in phenotypic changes) are enough to make interbreeding between the two isolated populations impossible.    The two populations may even look absolutely *identical* as far as phenotype ... but if their genotypes are sufficiently different, they will lose the ability to interbreed.  They have become two  permanently separate *species*, even if they "look" phenotypically identical.

And it is at that point that any changes in genotype that affect phenotype start to accumulate.  They *CANNOT* affect each other.  So their phenotype can only get more and more different over time.  Creationists have never been able to identify anything that puts a limit on this phenotypic change.

>"I believe in OBSERVABLE SCIENCE. Not psuedo-science, which is what modern day science is(well most of it anyways)."

C'mon dude.  If you want a polite discussion, then you shouldn't enter a science forum insisting that YOU are the only true scientist in the room because YOU believe in "OBSERVABLE SCIENCE" while "most" of modern science is just pseudoscience.

It's like walking onto a downtown basketball court, saying "I believe in DRIBBLING and SHOOTING", and then not only trash-talking all the guys already playing there, but trash-talking the the entire NBA ("well most of it anyways") as pseudobasketball.

Anybody who loves science believes in OBSERVABLE SCIENCE.   The problem is that you have a very narrow definition of "OBSERVABLE" that would cripple scientific progress back to the middle ages.

Macroevolution IS OBSERVABLE.  Absolutely it is!

(See source.)

Something doesn't have to be directly observable *as it occurs* ... or else none of us would ever conclude that fully grown oak trees grow from acorns (as none of us have ever directly observed a fully grown oak tree grow from an acorn *as it occurs*).   To say nothing of knowing about how glaciers move, or beaches erode, or snowflakes form, or meteors fall, or how stars or planets are born.  How do you know the sun is made of hydrogen ... have you ever been there?  Have you directly *OBSERVED* it?    No ... you know the sun is made of hydrogen by taking *indirect* observations of sunlight, and making *inferences*.  To limit science to what is directly observable *in the act* is to cripple science to a joke.

Answer 5

Stop thinking about it as micro vs macro. Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles from generation to generation. That's it. It is driven a specific way by natural selection. There's no point in arguing about this because it's fact.

As for the whole evolution vs creation argument, it's all pointless. They do not contradict each other. I am a Christian and science does not threaten my beliefs. Many of the stories in the old testament are literary works, i.e. fiction. Esther is one widely accepted as such, creation is another. There's no point in arguing with someone who accepts the direct literal translation of a story written thousands of yeas ago in a language we still don't fully understand.

Evidence for evolution is in the DNA. Our DNA is like a history book of wars waged for millions of years. Endogenic viruses transplant their DNA into the gonads. The organism then has offspring whose entire DNA now contains that virus. We have so many of these in our DNA it's rediculous. You know what also contains nearly an exact copy of our DNA? Chimps. Either God is playing a very cruel joke leading us to believe that evolution is fact or it is in fact, fact.

Answer 6

Because macro-evolution happens at a rate that is so slow, even creationist could eventually develop the beginning of a real critical sense by the time something noticeable happens.

Creationists are running out of reasonable objections and will try anything at this point.

Well, this is tiring; perhaps they should be left alone and in a couple of thousand of years, creationists will be a different (degenerate) species.

Answer 7

im going to take this one little tidbit in context and save the reast for the thorough destroying you've already recieved you little troll

you want to OBSERVE something that's know to take thousands and millions of years to accomplish?

good luck living that long

writeen history (early heirogliphs and cuniform etc) isn't even old enough to ahve recorded such data.. much less did they have desire of means to..

you want to wait around for 5 millions years to see some 'action'... bemy guest..

im comfortable with knowing that a set of parameters will produce a certain result

"timmy stands in an empty room and hold a basketball at shoulder height.. what will happen if he let's go"

that's the same kind of "faith" (and i use the term VERY loosely) required to understand and accept macroevolution

Answer 8

But genotypic variation (micro) causes phenotypic (macro) variation a lot of the time. It's the entire process of the evolution of a species that has never been observed directly (in the flesh).

Answer 9

I can tell you this with insight and knowing, where virtual life co-exist with the natural order of things, and in the blending of atomic self replicators, biological cell structures and synthetic genes, neuro-surgeons have replaced all but a part of me. My mind is quite clear and memory keen. I remembered everything, both virtual and organic parts of me. Energy patches is all the nutrition I needed. Organic food can be eaten in a nano-molecular sort of way.

I can hear voices and music in my nero-synaptic pathways and my visual cortex enhancer is working perfectly today. Mentally surfing the Web is very stimulating in a more bio-synthetic way. It’s easy to covert thoughts into written words, as you might say.

Now you are aware of the Neuronet Communication’s System, which is sentient in design. This system will be a part of everything you do in work and play.

Answer 10

this is completely erroneous. i expect nothing less from creationists.

to make such a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution demonstrates a lack of understanding of evolution in general.  

Answer 11

If you believe in observable science, then how can you be a creationist at all?  There are no observations of creation happening.

Creationism thrives only because of blind faith.  Nothing rational about that.