| From: Mark Dawson | 22/04/99
12:34:44 |
| Subject: Macro evolution | post id:
7843 |
| I am currently conversing with
some creationists in the U.S. who asked me to provide evidence of any new
species that have been obsevered to evolve. Unfortunately my example of
the Apple Maggot Fly didn't wash with them as they quite rightly pointed
out that this was only micro evolution. Any
suggestions? | |
| From: Richard T Hut | 22/04/99
12:37:37 |
| Subject: re: Macro evolution | post id:
7844 |
| I don't know about naturally
evolving species, but there are certainly many genetically engineered ones
- I was reading a New Scientist the other day (can't say which one
exactly) where some people had created a cama (a cross between a Llama and
a camal)!!! | |
| From: Adrian | 22/04/99
12:47:52 |
| Subject: re: Macro evolution | post id:
7851 |
| Mark pick any virus you wish to
name. over use of antibiotics has cause masive mutations ie influenza A It is difficult to point out forms of evolution in a historical recorded time span other than using examples such as genetic diseases. The best example is Cystic Fibrosis. Being Hetrozygous to CF (only one gene) potects people of european decent from some thalasemmias. | |
| From: Chris W (Plebeian) | 22/04/99
12:50:09 |
| Subject: re: Macro evolution | post id:
7854 |
| You could explain that the theory
requires geological timescales, but that won't wash. You could use the
variety of dogs that have been bred into existance over the last century
as an example of the accelerated process. I suspect that you'll find nothing that will satisfy them - even the most concrete, incontravertable evidence. To fan the flames: You could ask for evidence of a Biblical flood, or (as someone pointed out yesterday) why aren't there kangaroos around Mt Arrarat. | |
| From: steve | 22/04/99
15:53:41 |
| Subject: re: Macro evolution | post id:
7916 |
| It is very difficult to argue
with creationists, but it can be a lot of fun. Their main problem is that
any evidence you can produce which is at odds with their interpretation of
the Bible has to be wrong on principle. You should check out the
Australian Skeptics web site (http://www.skeptics.com.au) and look at the
section "No answers in genesis" for some interesting ammunition. Also for
general interest read Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Many creationists think that this question is the one evolutionists cannot answer, and they use a faked interview with Richard Dawkins in a video to confirm this. The question has been answered many times. If you want to see a good example of a species that has evolved, tell them to look in a mirror. many creationists are accepting what they call "micro-evolution", for instance different breeds of dogs, but not "macro-evolution" the evolution of a new species. They are wrong but before you argue with them get some of the information you will need. | |
| From: steve | 22/04/99
16:36:56 |
| Subject: re: Macro evolution | post id:
7932 |
| Another point, Chris suggested
asking them about Noah's flood. Some interesting points can be made about
this. If the rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights and covered the Earth to
the tops of the highest mountains, that's a lot of water. Mt Everest is
8393m high. For the flood to cover Mt Everest in 960 hours of rain, it
would have required a rainfall rate of 8742.7mm an hour, every hour over
every point on the Earth's surface. This can be expressed as 145.7mm a
minute. The heaviest rainfall ever recorded anywhere on the Earth is 38mm
in one minute. In one hour, the heaviest is 401mm. All this water had to come from clouds. If the water droplets in a cloud are 10% of the cloud's volume (it's much less than that) and all the water in the cloud fell as rain (it doesn't), The cloud would have to be more than 80km thick and surrounding the whole Earth. Leaving aside the fact that the water molecules in the top of the cloud would be torn apart by solar radiation, a cloud that thick would allow no light to reach the Earth's surface. No light - no life. Once they have explained that, ask them what happened to the water afterwards. You don't even need to get onto the dimensions of the ark, how they fed the animals, why did they bother keeping fleas, ticks and other parasites, and what they did with all the poo. | |
| From: Rhys | 22/04/99
17:31:32 |
| Subject: re: Macro evolution | post id:
7954 |
| steve.. some good points there
but: The Biblical God is all powerful, so therefore a few equations wouldn't bother him too much Secondly.. did the water cover the whole earth, up to mount Everest? Mount Ararat is considerablly smaller than Everest, and that's where the ark came to rest. Not only that, but science has proven that a flood actually did take place a few thousand years ago.. I'm sure to many people at the time it seemed as if the water covered all of their knowable earth. Later accounts would have been guilty of heavy doses of hyperbole.. a tool of language surely as old as language itself. Thirdly.. you can say whatever you like to fundmentalist Christians... often common sense and real world facts simply bounce off of their faith like a kid on a trampoline. And in a way, that's something I admire. I've never been certain about anything :) rhys | |
| From: James Richmond (Avatar) | 22/04/99
18:04:32 |
| Subject: re: Macro evolution | post id:
7961 |
| The
Biblical God is all powerful, so therefore a few equations wouldn't bother
him too much. Anything can be explained by saying "God is all powerful, and He did it miraculously." I have no problems with anyone believing that God did something. However, creationism puts itself forward not as a matter of faith, but as a scientific theory. In fact, creationists often call themselves "scientific creationists". The tenets of creationism, they say, are solidly based in science, and the scientific method can be used to show that they are true. The reason that the creationists want to say that creationism is a science and not religious dogma is so that they can have it taught in schools in the United States. The First Amendment of the US Constitution, regarding freedom of religion, prohibits religious education in schools. Creationism is a religion. Creationists call it science in order to "slip under the barriers", which they have partially succeeded in doing in some states of the US. Dedicated creationists are not interested in debate about whether their claims are actually supported by scientific evidence. This will rapidly become clear to anyone trying to engage a creationist in a serious debate. To reiterate - creationism as a religion is fine. People are entitled to their beliefs. But it is not science, and should not be presented as such. JR | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 23/04/99
0:16:18 |
| Subject: re: Macro evolution | post id:
8019 |
| Unfortunately you can't use the
example of evolution of bacteria or virus's really, since macroevolution,
by definition, is the generation of new species, and in order to
unambiguously define a species you need sexual reproduction (individuals
of different species cannot mate to produce live offspring) and bacteria
and virus are asexual. Similarly dog breeding does cut it since dogs can interbreed and so are all the same species. However, as I recall, new plant species are created all the time even without the use of gene splicing techniques, just simple breeding, so if you include humankind as an instrument of nature then speciation has unambiguously occured. Unfortunately, though, this generally won't cut it with a creationist since in order to be a creationist you generally must also be a fundamentalist and it clearly states in Genesis that "Man" was made separate from the rest of the natural world (I wonder if this means speciation as a result of female botanists counts :-), so it can be argued that anything done by "Man" (by which they also often mean to include women) doesn't count. What we need is to observe to really nail it is natural speciation from a single species of animals (if you read Genesis properly it is clear that plants are not living organisms - have you noticed that Noah didn't take any plant stock on board his ark even though the vast majority of plants could not have survived being underwater for so long, let alone under SEA WATER) which has separated into two or more isolated groups to have occured in documented history. Unfortunately, the conditions for this doesn't happen very often. I did, however, hear a report of an instance of this happening for a species of insect (I can't remember whether it was a moth or a mosquito, though not to be confused, though, with the microevolutional darkening of moths as a result of air pollution caused by the industrial revolution) living in different non-connected sections of the London Underground. These insects were documented as a single species before the creaion of the Underground, and different populations in the different sections appear to have diverged just enough that they can no longer interbreed. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate the source of this report in the scientific literature. If someone out their knows where this study was published (the report was on radio national as I recall) I WOULD JUST LOVE A REFERENCE so I can get a hold of the paper. Soupie twist, Ed G.  | |
| From: jim bashford | 23/04/99
11:40:36 |
| Subject: re: Macro evolution | post id:
8109 |
| Sorry to be pedantic Ed, but
defining a species isn't as straightforward as being able to interbreed. - Donkeys and horses can interbreed, as can lions and tigers. - Chihuhuas and St Bernards cannot interbreed due to physical obstacles. - How about sterile/infertile individuals? Like many biological concepts it's a bit woolly when you try to explore it in depth :-) | |
| From: steve | 27/04/99
16:10:10 |
| Subject: re: Macro evolution | post id:
8522 |
| Jim Horses and donkeys can be bred as can lions and tigers. They don't do it normally and produce infertile offspring when they do. Chihuahuas and St Bernards might not be able to do it physically, but if you artificially inseminated a st Bernard from a chihuahua, the offspring would be fertile. Don't try this the other way round, exploding chihuahuas would not be very pleasant. | |
| From: jim bashford | 27/04/99
16:43:02 |
| Subject: re: Macro evolution | post id:
8533 |
| Sure we can append the working
definition of "species" to "individuals which sexually produce fertile
offspring (whether assisted by man or not)" and account for hybrids this way. But surely not all infertile individuals can be considered as hybrids, and they don't have a place in this scheme. Taxonomy or something might suggest which bunch of (fertile!) organisms said individual is most closely related to in a mjority of cases but classifying organisms is still more complicated than simple reproduction . cheers jim | |
| From: Sue | 27/04/99
19:21:28 |
| Subject: re: Macro evolution | post id:
8547 |
| It's interesting, the point about
exploding Chihuahuas. Cattle have the same problem, the maximum size of
the fetus isn't well regulated to suit the mother's size, and there are a
lot of Caesarean sections resulting from the use of massive breeds like
Limousin over cows of a smaller breed. However, in horses this is not such
a problem. The foetus tends not to grow to a size which would make it
problematic for the mother to give birth to, even when Thoroughbred
stallions are crossed with ponies. When foals get stuck, it's usually
related to their long limbs tangling up or them facing the wrong
way. | |