Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 63835

True, natural selection, or change within species, is a given. It is making the leap to macro evolution that takes faith. Macro is not provable, observable, or falsifiable. Neither is special creation, both have to be taken on faith. What is interesting is, Darwin himself said that hundreds, if not thousands, of transitional fossils should be found if his theory was correct, yet none have. Darwin, like any scientist, took what he observed and tried to apply it to what was unobservable in an attempt to explain the unknown. He is to be commended. It just didn't pan out. Unfortunately, those who dogmatically refuse to consider special creation or any other theory hi-jacked poor Darwin's theory and stretched it to fit their needs. They have taught it religiously in schools as fact. Now that thinking people are questioning the credibility of this theory, evolutionists fling accusations of blind faith at the opposition, completely overlooking their own near-sighted dogmatism.

JaneE, Yahoo Buzz 38 Comments [7/6/2009 9:20:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 23
Submitted By: The Watcher
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Captain Obvious

Except, thousand of Transitional fossils have been found and continue to be found.

Where did Fundies get this weird idea that we haven't found any transitional fossils? They say it all the time when they ought to know by now that they are lying for jesus.

7/6/2009 9:29:25 PM

DarkfireTaimatsu

All fossils are transitional.

There is no "macro" or "micro" evolution, just evolution.

7/6/2009 9:31:14 PM

Sula Nebouxii

@ Captain Obvious

It's very simple. Their idea of a transitional fossil is along the lines of the infamous crocoduck. They think a transitional form between say reptiles and birds has to have a mix of fully reptilian parts and fully avian parts. Needless to say, this is a completely wrong concept of what transitional forms are.

7/6/2009 10:21:43 PM

Orestes

You know, just because you are wallowing in the tepid filth known as ignorance, it doesn't invalidate that we have indeed found transitional fossils.

7/6/2009 10:55:19 PM

A Friend

Darwin's theory wasn't hijacked. It has been expanded upon in the last 150 years as knew facts have been discovered. The only hijacking of the ToE I have seen is the creationist strawman versions of it. Also, the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution are made up creationist crap just to save face and accept a portion of the ToE. Btw, "special creation"? You are not special and that's exactly what's wrong with fundies. You are nothing but a flock of egotistic, ignorant, and insufferble people.

7/6/2009 11:01:00 PM

fundiesRtehlulz

I really wish your propaganda movement wasn't as popular as it is. Kids are already doing bad enough in schools, we don't need your bullshit creationism thrown into the mix.

7/6/2009 11:02:27 PM

Ian1732

Yes, macroevolution is rediculous.

Microevolution making up macroevolution, however, is perfectly reasonable.

7/6/2009 11:31:21 PM

JonnyTruant

What you all keep refusing to understand is that every fossil is transitional. Every species currently in existence is a transitional form to another future form.

7/7/2009 12:12:46 AM



Every fossil of every animal that we find is a transitional fossil. Finding a triceratops skeleton is a transitional fossil.

7/7/2009 12:14:19 AM

ausador

Micro==Macro
All fossils are transistional.

Lieing for Jesus?...

7/7/2009 12:20:41 AM

Old Viking

If you Google "transitional fossils" you'll get 174,000 hits.

7/7/2009 12:21:30 AM

El Zorro

Oh look, an army of PRATT's!

7/7/2009 2:04:43 AM

Swedish Pagan

Much has happened since Darwin, lots of his ideas has been thrown out or revised. What's this macro? Changes within a species eventually makes the individuals so different from each other that a new species has been formed. That is all there is to it, really. From a layman's point of view at least.

Blind faith has nothing to do with science.

7/7/2009 3:01:04 AM

Clown

"completely overlooking their own near-sighted dogmatism."

Question: Why would a species be limit?

Also, "LALALA, I can't hear you" FTL.

7/7/2009 3:04:20 AM

David B.

"There is no "macro" or "micro" evolution, just evolution."
"Yes, macroevolution is rediculous. Microevolution making up macroevolution, however, is perfectly reasonable."
"Micro==Macro"


No, there's a technical difference between micro-evolution, which refers to evolutionary processes operating within a species, and macro-evolution, which refers to patterns that emerge as species and lineages branch through time, including the rate and pace of evolutionary change, adaptive radiation, morphological trends in lineages, extinction or branching of a lineage, concepts such as species sorting, and the emergence of major new morphological features (such as segmentation, or shells, or the fusion or loss of bones) [to quote Nick Matzke of the NCSE].

While "microevolution + time = macroevolution" is generally true, it is a very broad and imprecise statement. Not all "microevolution + time" leads to macroevolution (i.e. speciation), as the very long lineages of some species and the existence of living fossils shows. Nor even is all macroevolution a product of "microevolution + time", since there are several known instances of new species emerging from hybridisation of existing ones (several of the examples of observed macroevolution listed on the talk.origins site are of this type). These are cases where the 'evolution' took place above the species level, and it was not a result of the accumulation of small changes over time. Hybridisation is even thought to have played a part in our own evolution.

So while it is generally okay to say that "macroevolution = microevolution + time", the two terms are not (IMO) exactly synonymous.

7/7/2009 3:07:07 AM

BobsOldSocks

@Captain Obvious

What you're forgetting is, when fundies talk about "transitional" fossils they mean fossils of a half fish, half cat creature because that's how they think evolution works due to the fact they've been consistently lied to by those they trust and revere. So, until such time as scientists produce some kind of literal chimera they'll continue to squeal that there are no transitionals. And the world will continue to ignore them.

7/7/2009 3:09:08 AM

David B.

"Also, the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution are made up creationist crap just to save face and accept a portion of the ToE."

This is not true. The terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution were not invented by creationists.

The terms were coined by biologist and evolutionist Yuri Philipchenko, in 1927.

The terms were widely used by Theo Dobzhansky, a pupil of Philipchenko and co-framer of the "modern synthesis" (also called neo-Darwinism).

"Nothing in the known macroevolutionary phenomena would require other than the known genetic principles for causal explanation"
-- T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, 1951.

Of course, where we find Dobzhansky, we also find Ernst Mayr.

"Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided."
-- E. Mayr, Toward a New Philsophy of Biology, 1988.

More recently, they were used by Nick Matzke and Eugenie Scott in a article for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"The microevolution/macroevolution distinction is particularly revealing. In evolutionary biology, microevolution refers to evolutionary processes operating within a species. Although scientists sometimes colloquially refer to macroevolution as “evolution above the species level,” this definition does not do justice to the complexity of topics included within the concept. Macroevolution refers to patterns that emerge as species and lineages branch through time, including the rate and pace of evolutionary change, adaptive radiation, morphological trends in lineages, extinction or branching of a lineage, concepts such as species sorting, and the emergence of major new morphological features (such as segmentation, or shells, or the fusion or loss of bones). Decades ago, creationists began to use microevolution and macroevolution idiosyncratically. Creationists' use of “microevolution” is not dissimilar to that of evolutionary biologists, although they apply it not just to species but to evolution within the limits of a specially created “kind” of organism. When ID supporters and other creationists claim to accept some evolution, they generally mean it in this limited sense of evolution “within the kind.” A larger distinction occurs in the creationist definition of macroevolution, which to them refers to (unacceptable) common ancestry of different created kinds. It also refers to the acquisition of major morphological features or body plan changes, also considered impossible without the direct involvement of God. Both creation science and ID approach the micro/macro divide similarly: microevolution is accepted, and macroevolution (their definition) is rejected."
-- Nick Matzke and Eugenie Scott, PNAS 104:8669-8676.

You are wrong, and perpetuating a myth as false as Darwin's deathbed conversion. Don't be like the fundtards, learn the lesson and stop.

Some other words creationists didn't "invent" - but do misuse - are Darwinism, Darwinist, Darwinian (as either adjective or noun) and evolutionist.

7/7/2009 3:13:24 AM

Paschal Wagner

True, natural running, or running around inside a stadium, is a given. It is making the leap to long-distance running that takes faith. Marathons are not provable, observable, or falsifiable. Neither is cross-country running, both have to be taken on faith. What is interesting is, Le Coubertin himself said that several, if not dozens of Olympics would be held if he started one, yet none have.

7/7/2009 3:27:38 AM

EvoPagan

This is the most well-written and least abrasive thing I have ever read from YA.

Unfortunately it's still horseshit.

7/7/2009 3:29:34 AM

Thundersqueaks

"Macro is not provable, observable, or falsifiable. Neither is special creation, both have to be taken on faith."

That's a very reasonable standpoint. At least, that's how it's made to appear to those who don't understand the science of evolution.

7/7/2009 4:09:27 AM

The Jamo

Look, will you knock it off with the transitional fossil thing. Every fucking fossil is transitional, which, in essence, makes none of them transitional. It's the same as highlighting every word on a printed page; if you do it, then nothing stands out.

How thick are you?

7/7/2009 5:44:31 AM

aaa

Oh, for fucks sake.

7/7/2009 6:09:52 AM

Zoo

"True, natural selection, or change within species, is a given. It is making the leap to macro evolution that takes faith. Macro is not provable, observable, or falsifiable. "

Ok, so change within a species is a given. Speciation would then be macroevolution? Macoevolution occurs then, because we have observed speciation on many occasions.

"Neither is special creation, both have to be taken on faith."

To start, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Special creation is actually not comparable to it until you get to where biodiversity comes from. For that we do have evidence that change -between- species has occurred, and we have evidence that change between -classes- has occurred. These things, if they occur as we predict, will be observable eventually, so long as our species doesn't annihilate itself. In the meantime, it's a choice between the stronger evidence. "Macroevolution" has that, while "special creation" does not, making the latter about faith and the former about evidence. The other thing is our take on evolution is subject to change as better evidence becomes available, as hypotheses are supported or falsified. This is a good thing, since science corrects itself as more knowledge becomes available.

"What is interesting is, Darwin himself said that hundreds, if not thousands, of transitional fossils should be found if his theory was correct, yet none have."

Define "transitional fossil".

"Darwin, like any scientist, took what he observed and tried to apply it to what was unobservable in an attempt to explain the unknown. He is to be commended. It just didn't pan out."

Which is why his idea of natural selection doesn't apply to the real world today. . . .

"Unfortunately, those who dogmatically refuse to consider special creation or any other theory hi-jacked poor Darwin's theory and stretched it to fit their needs."

Notice how I already mentioned science is self correcting. He got some things right, and others wrong. Scientists tear each others' work apart all the time to make sure it really holds up. If it holds up we keep working on it, and over time we learn the things we need to make a theory stronger.

"They have taught it religiously in schools as fact."

Evolution = change over time. This is a fact. It is not religious at all. Evolutionary theory is an explanation of how that fact occurs. Unfortunately most people confuse this with abiogenesis (though we have some evidence for that too).

"Now that thinking people are questioning the credibility of this theory, evolutionists fling accusations of blind faith at the opposition, completely overlooking their own near-sighted dogmatism."

If these people are "thinking people" they have some serious flaws in their thinking, like refusing to look at evidence presented to them, conflating different fields of study and changing definitions on us. We keep trying to explain to you that evolutionary theory, like all science, is not dogmatic, because being dogmatic is "characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles" or "stubbornly adhering to insufficiently proven beliefs; inflexible, rigid" and science changes all the time to reflect new information, and drop old information if we find it's actually not true all the time. (Definitions from google search.)

7/7/2009 6:40:38 AM

Mister Spak

We have the transitional fossils. We win.
You have near sighted dogmatism. You lose.


7/7/2009 8:30:57 AM

Reverend Jeremiah

I know, right..poor Darwin. He knew his theory was bogus and that special creationism was correct, and now people are stretching it out in his name.

You know, they say in order to stab someone in the back, you have to get behind them.

7/7/2009 8:50:46 AM
1 2