18
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 126:
Line 126: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (view source)
Revision as of 20:48, March 13, 2007
, 20:48, March 13, 2007→Yes
'''3''' There is a double nested hierarchy. That is, all life forms two nested hierarchies, one morphological and one genetic and these hierarchies correspond to how they evolved. While it is true that when designers as we know them design things they design them with similarities, they do not design them in nested hierarchies. Human designers will use an idea in one place and then copy that section over somewhere else. (For example, one would not expect an engineer to design the panda's thumb but rather expect the engineer use the pre-existing thumb design from primates). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:01, 13 February 2007 (EST)
'''3''' There is a double nested hierarchy. That is, all life forms two nested hierarchies, one morphological and one genetic and these hierarchies correspond to how they evolved. While it is true that when designers as we know them design things they design them with similarities, they do not design them in nested hierarchies. Human designers will use an idea in one place and then copy that section over somewhere else. (For example, one would not expect an engineer to design the panda's thumb but rather expect the engineer use the pre-existing thumb design from primates). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:01, 13 February 2007 (EST)
[[User:stubbstarbuck]]
As with every evolution debate, most of the anti-evolution stance is misinformed about the theory of evolution to the point where many of their points aren't even counter to the theory of evolution, but to some unnamed proxy theory that no one, especially someone who knows anything about evolution, would accept.
I would suggest reading http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php to learn the basics.
But here are the major misconceptions.
1) Evolution is not a progressive process. No one has ever said that it is. It's a misinterpretation of a t-shirt that has a bunch of apes turning into humans on it. So many people get this wrong it's become a cliche. A bacteria species and a human are every bit as evolved as each other, each in their own niche. Even complexity is a relative term. An eyeball is as complex, in many ways, as a flagella, or even the digestive process of an amoeba.
2) Natural selection is not the only way genetic mutations can move through populations. Another process is genetic drift. Mutations that are not fatal or beneficial can become part of a genotype and stay there. Traits only need to beneficial or not too harmful to allow an individual to pass on its genes. Evolution does not have to work well; it just has to work. For example, the human back sucks for upright walking. No engineer would design it that way - but it works well enough that we don't die before having offspring.
3) Scientific theories are constantly revised, and they're used to explain natural phenomena, not "prove them right". Stop quoting Darwin, and try to understand science better. No physicist quotes Newton when discussing relativity and quantum mechanics, because his classical theories are actually wrong. They work well at slow speeds far away from massive black holes, but they don't appear to be correct in the sense that they explain everything physical. Literally they require fixed time and space which doesn't fit with observation, but we don't throw them out - they are revised, or used with exceptions.
4) Evolution doesn't violate thermodynamics. You don't understand thermodynamics if you think that. Energy is constantly added to our closed system (for all intents and purposes) by that big bright ball in the sky. However, you are right - when our sun burns out, we're all gone. But - the theory of evolution will still be valid.
5) Macroevolution is microevolution over a longer time scale. It is not a separate theory. I don't even know why they have different names. This is just a misconception of deep time. Let me help you. If you use a millimeter to represent one year, then life began on this planet the equivalent distance of a flight from Las Vegas to New York (2,000 miles). The last 10,000 years are equivalent to 10 meters (roughly a half a football field). The last hundred years take up 10 centimeters (about 5 inches). That's an incredibly long time for life to evolve into new species. Even Homo sapiens takes up almost 1/4 mile.
6) Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We both evolved from a similar species whose population split at some point, possibly more than once. See point 1 above.
7) Evolution and the biological species concept are more complex than the generalizations we use, which is probably where a lot of the confusion comes from. No respecting biologist would tell you there is a strict species definition; we only have guidelines. We have trouble defining individuals! For instance, is a Portuguese Man O' War an individual or a colony? What about a honey bee? The queen lays all the eggs by fertilizing with a drone that might even be her own progeny. They could all be the same genetically. Are twins individuals?
8) Accepting evolution does not preclude a belief in God. Sure, many people who accept evolution reject religion, or are even atheists, but this is separate from evolution. It doesn't even mention it.
==No==
==No==