How best to argue against creationists

[Man of Faith]

Not only have you failed in your understanding of philosophy, the question you ask, "why can't microevolution lead to macroevolution", is not an example of the accepted Theory of Evolution.

First, lets get the actual scientific terms correctly defined.

Macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch". Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

(Source)

Second, while there may be philosophical debate among scientists concerning whether or not Macroevolution and Microevolution are reductionist or non-reductionist, neither of these tenets are central to the actual Theory of Evolution. Nor will either one be until it moves beyond the simple philosophical questions, and into empirical data. As actual Micro and Macro evolution have done already.

Thank you for being honest. This philosophical debate needs to be in the philosophy class.

 

[Man of Faith]

btw, MoF, don't you actually agree with ToE that new species do evolve? That is, that macro-evolution happens? Your only disagreement is with how many common ancestors there are, isn't that correct?

There is no universally accepted definition of species.

 

[Man of Faith]

We have observed microevolution, but we have never observed macroevolution. Lassie may microevolve and in time produce peanut, but Lassie has never been observed turning into flipper. That is the difference.

+1 :yes:

 

[Man of Faith]

CB901: No Macroevolution

CB910: New species

This is equivocation on what is a species. There is no universally accepted definition of species and there are no new forms of creatures observed being evolved. Hence part of the ToE isn't observable and should be in the philosphy class.

 

[Man of Faith]

For the nine millionth time, you don't have to directly observe something for science to be able to conclude it. Science is based on (wait for it)...(here it comes)...(this may sound familiar)...

EVIDENCE.

We use science to draw conclusions from what we do observe. If science was confined to what we observe, then until 1950 the earth would have been flat.

And for the ten millionth time, if Lassie turned into Flipper, ToE would be falsified.

So, once again, do you not KNOW what ToE says, or do you deliberately make up lies about it?

The ToE says that a frog became a prince, why would that falsify the ToE if it happened again? And I'm not talking quickly, I'm talking over long periods of time. If it happened one time, it should be continually happening, if "the present is the key to the past". We should see humans being developed right before our very eyes in a million different stages.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Thank you for being honest. This philosophical debate needs to be in the philosophy class.

You really have no idea how the epistemic, semantic and ethical aspects of science relate to the empirical aspects of science, do you?

 

[Gunfingers]

You really have no idea how the epistemic, semantic and ethical aspects of science relate to the empirical aspects of science, do you?

No, man, you don't understand. If you make an absurd claim, such as that there is a magical barrier limiting genetic drift, no one can ask you for evidence. If they do, then all of the evidence they have becomes nothing more than philosophy, and no longer counts.

 

[Man of Faith]

No, man, you don't understand. If you make an absurd claim, such as that there is a magical barrier limiting genetic drift, no one can ask you for evidence. If they do, then all of the evidence they have becomes nothing more than philosophy, and no longer counts.

Let's say that there isn't a barrier limiting genetic drift, all this Darwinian evolution still isn't observable so it still falls into the philosophical arena. It is a worldview.

 

[evolved yet?]

There is no universally accepted definition of species.

Hmmm... What about the biological species concept!

 

[evolved yet?]

The ToE says that a frog became a prince, why would that falsify the ToE if it happened again? And I'm not talking quickly, I'm talking over long periods of time. If it happened one time, it should be continually happening, if "the present is the key to the past". We should see humans being developed right before our very eyes in a million different stages.

Tell me when you've been around for 400 million years.

 

[evolved yet?]

Let's say that there isn't a barrier limiting genetic drift, all this Darwinian evolution still isn't observable so it still falls into the philosophical arena. It is a worldview.

What if we saw macroevolution? Then would it be observable?

 

[Man of Faith]

Hmmm... What about the biological species concept!

That is not universally accepted, science can't agree.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Let's say that there isn't a barrier limiting genetic drift, all this Darwinian evolution still isn't observable so it still falls into the philosophical arena. It is a worldview.

I am guessing MoF wants to see millions of years worth of change recorded for YouTube.
The scientific methods of observation, prediction, and verification used in Micro-Biology, Genetics, Biology, Paleontology and Bio-Chemistry are misinterpreted by creationists like MoF as "Philosophy".
What he does not understand is that philosophy does not deal with empirical evidence.

As related to the OP, you can see how the futility of debating creationists is exposed in their tendency to redefine scientific terms to fit their own religious dogma.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That is not universally accepted, science can't agree.

"most widely accepted species concept"

 

[Gunfingers]

It's true that "species" is a kinda fuzzy line, which is why macroevolution, evolution "above the species level", is nebulous and unscientific. This is also why scientists don't take that term seriously, but instead only use it colloquially. In real biology the linnean levels of taxonomy are only maintained to make things accessible to laypersons.

 

[DeitySlayer]

The ToE says that a frog became a prince.

Actually, no, it doesn't. We share a distant amphibious ancestor, but frogs are not direct ancestors of humans.

why would that falsify the ToE if it happened again?

See above.

And I'm not talking quickly, I'm talking over long periods of time.

Precisely. The timespan is too large for direct visual human observation.

 

[evolved yet?]

Pretty good post, I see some problems with it. One is the assumption that the ToE is all science and not mixed with some Philosophy. In the entry the statement is made that theories explain observed phenomenon. There are things in the Toe which aren't observable. I would be satisfied if they took the parts of the ToE that are philosophy and put them up against ID in the philosophy class. They can leave the observable parts in the science class.

Philosophy is questions without answers, religion is answers that you're not allowed to question.

 

[Autodidact]

Either way the question is philosophical not evidential. It is not evidence of anything. If the evidence was there and observable one wouldn't have to ask "why can't it", one could say "here it is". Can you observe frog to prince evolution? Saying that macroevolution is observable is equivocating on what is a new form of creature.

Here it is. Just let us know when you're ready to take your head out of the sand and look at it.

For the nine million and oneth time, science isn't just what we observe, it's what we can conclude from what we observe. Otherwise the world is flat.

For the nine million and twoth time, don't you agree that speciation, aka macro-evolution, happens?

 

[Autodidact]

This is another philosophical argument, not evidential.

You're saying that 10 x 10 = 100 is a philosophical argument? Ever study any philosophy at all?

 

[Autodidact]

Thank you for being honest. This philosophical debate needs to be in the philosophy class.

Sounds good. And keep the scientific facts, such as ToE, in the science class. Such as, for example, the scientific fact that all living things share a single common ancestor.