SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brumar89 who wrote (63175)11/22/2014 12:32:19 PM
From: 2MAR$  Read Replies (1) of 69300
 
Part of the problem is that so-called laymen outside their field of expertise are easily confused when considering the confounding notion of what a “species” really is and what speciation” entails.

Jim Tour:
“From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us
regarding small changes within a species…“…So the debate between the
validity of extending microevolutionary trends to macroevolutionary projections
is indeed persistent in evolutionary biology.”


(Uhmm… there is no debate whatsoever. The logic behind the easily documented changes in allelic frequency in Biston betularia can also extend to easily documented and novel changes that also entail reproductive isolation eg the Lizards on Croatian islands mentioned above)

The suggestion that willow warbler & chiffchaffs had a recent common ancestor; or that Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis also recently diverged from a common ancestor (or how about domestic horses, donkeys and let’s throw in Przewalski horses for good measure) poses no difficulty what so ever to gainsayers of Macroevolution. Or as the sheep in George Orwell's Animal Farm would probably bleat: "Microevolution good - Macroevolution bad!"

Neither Jim Tour nor Peter above have any difficulty with this notion of “microevolution” even though speciation has been thereby conceded – after all equines remain equines, drosophila remain drosophila and warblers remain warblers.

Caveat mucrom gracilim cuneati; or beware the thin edge of the wedge! Or to paraphrase Huxley, `The Lord hath delivered the enemy into my hands'!

In that case, neither Jim Tour nor Peter above should have any difficulty with extending this notion of “microevolution” to Bonobos, Chimpanzees and Humans given these three meet the criteria of “sibling species" even better (by far) than domestic horses, donkeys and Przewalski horses.

Every Creationist I have encountered has demonstrated the most egregious intellectual dishonesty by conceding the emergence of sibling species when discussing Croatian Lizards or Hawaiian Fruit Flies or equine species… but draws the line at Hominidae! Something along the lines: “Just don’t tell me that I am descended from a Chimpanzee!”

Uhmm of course not – I would never be so inclined to insult a Chimpanzee!

quod erat demonstrandum
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News