By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.

by FadingTruth 76 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cappytan

  Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation.

  There is no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. There is just evolution.

  What you are referring to as "microevolution" is from generation to generation. Give "microevolution" a few million generations, and you'll see species completely change. (i.e. some dinosaurs evolving into birds)

  Evolution also has absolutely NOTHING to do with explaining the "origin of life." It explains speciation. And it has the evidence and data to back it up. Which is why it is a THEORY and not a hypothesis.

  The concept of a creator has absolutely no basis in fact or evidence whatsoever.
• 

  marmot

  Cappytan, no joke your post made me smile. I remember when you first started posting about your doubts and now here you are, a staunch evolutionist. Awesome, keep it up.
• 

  SimonSays

  Evolution also has absolutely NOTHING to do with explaining the "origin of life." It explains speciation. And it has the evidence and data to back it up. Which is why it is a THEORY and not a hypothesis.

  The concept of a creator has absolutely no basis in fact or evidence whatsoever.

  That would be the point from an evolution stand point of view, EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO with CREATION.
  
• 

  SimonSays

  While your definition of evolution has many variables, the distinctions therefore continue as hypothetical, even if certain aspects have proven theories.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  No, it's not hypothetical. I suggest you do some research on the Coywolf, an animal that you can observe right now.

  Regardless of the origin of life, let me repeat, regardless of the ORIGIN OF LIFE, animals evolve. To say anything less is dishonest and ignorant. For "Christ's brothers" to deliberately misquote authors or take quotes out of context in order to make "evolution" a dirty word is the height of dishonesty.

  DD
• 

  cognisonance

  Regarding the classic evolution iconography (what most think is an a modern ape -> us transition), this has long been argued to be a very bad way to covey evolution to the average person. What people think of as apes today are just what they see at the zoo. But in science humans are apes. Us along with Bonobos, Orangutans, and others came from a common ancestor, an extinct ape unlike those in the zoo today, which in turn came from an extinct common ancestor among primate.

  The graphics also incorrectly depicts evolution as a goal oriented process, such that a primate made progress to becoming an enlightened human. All of this is just wrong. I remember Stephen J. Gould talking about this in the book Wonderful Life. He labels this iconograph as the "icon of progress". Here is a picture from that book I believe showing how popular it become (making it's way into advertising):

  
  

  There are better ways to graphically depict evolution. This essentially is probably the worst way to do so. For better ways read more here.

  A more common way to represent evolution is phylogenetic trees such as these:

  
  
• 

  SimonSays

  DD> No, it's not hypothetical. I suggest you do some research on the Coywolf, an animal that you can observe right now.

  I would suggest before you open you big mouth and call people ignorant you read the threads correctly as no one is suggesting that premise.
  
• 

  marmot

  SimonSays, your skin is thinner than a salamander's, DataDog never called you ignorant.

  ...although if the shoe fits.
• 

  cappytan

  Cappytan, no joke your post made me smile. I remember when you first started posting about your doubts and now here you are, a staunch evolutionist. Awesome, keep it up.

  It's amazing what cracking open an actual Science book and examining the available evidence itself will do for you.
• 

  SimonSays

  DD Regardless of the origin of life, let me repeat, regardless of the ORIGIN OF LIFE, animals evolve. To say anything less is dishonest and ignorant. For "Christ's brothers" to deliberately misquote authors or take quotes out of context in order to make "evolution" a dirty word is the height of dishonesty.

  marmot: SimonSays, your skin is thinner than a salamander's, DataDog never called you ignorant.

  ...although if the shoe fits.

  Yes I’m aware of DD metaphor. Perhaps you will need a shoe horn and a mirror to give you the ability to see the reflection correctly while sizing up that shoe. Whereas the assertion of Christian brothers only applies to people that have not become complacent in their beliefs which reflects worlds apart from true understanding by which I associate with.