My sister believes in "micro" evolution, but not "macro" evolution

[JAbuchan08]

God I hate how these churches pray on impressionable young couples: luring them in with the promise of a support system and then indoctrinating them into their belief system. She's always been pretty impressionable and this is a major step backwards into fundamentalism. I started arguing with her on the phone, but I had to cut short because I was so flabbergasted that I was a little unprepared to try to convince her that evolution is evolution and does not come divisible into "micro" and "macro" versions


And then there's my friend who's family picked out a thanksgiving prayer about making war on the infidels for her to read.

[WindRavenX]

1. mico is more easily witnessed and more acceptable

HOWEVER, I do NOT get how "macro" evolution is seen as less reasonable or acceptable when there is tons of fucking fossil and DNA evidence (amino acid sequences in common proteins are usually very useful evidence)....I just don't fucking get it.

[Union Thug]

3. Because micro is UNDENIABLE... you witness it with moths and flies..etc.

in the labratory. But because the xtian fantasy worlders must grab onto something to distract them from the fact that their BS talking snake theory is somehow, someway, still plausible, they start splitting these hairs.

[Bill McBlueState]

4. is there some distinction between the two?

Aren't micro- and macroevolution just two ends of the same evolution continuum? I thought macroevolution was just the natural result of microevolution carried out over millions of years.

If I'm right about that, the fundies are just playing word games. Basically "we'll believe science until it makes us uncomfortable."

[Union Thug]

8. It's been a while, but I suppose 'punctuated equilibrium' could present..

something other than the 'chain' they you are describing. BUt I'm way out of touch. My last anthropology class was in 1986.

[papau]

13. 'punctuated equilibrium' is - I thought - the current standard theory

but the terms micro and macro relative to evolution are new to me.

[DrWeird]

14. No, there isn't.

It's just liars and idiots trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[JAbuchan08]

9. I SAID exactly that,

macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolutions strung together. Her response was "there's a lot of missing links" After I got off the phone with her I realized that if we can date fossils and certain fossils only begin to appear at a certain point in human history than either those species spran forth fully formed from somebody's head or they evolved from a previous species.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Does it really bother you /that/ much?

Seriously. I care more about stuff like war, poverty, freedom, respect, and the environment.

[Bill McBlueState]

7. who knows?

Obviously there is room on a message board this large for discussion of multiple topics, not simply the most serious and demanding ones.

[LoZoccolo]

12. I understand that.

I'm just talking about - is it so important to get flabbergasted with one's sister over this?

[DrWeird]

19. Science and education are important too.

nt

[JAbuchan08]

16. Yes it does. She was my best friend for most of our childhood

and I looked up to her. She got pregnant and her boyfriend at the tiem "reformed" himself into a conservative "evangelical." Now they are married and I sometimes feel as if I don't even know her. So yeah it bugs me. I know she has more sense than this - she didn't buy their line on Harry Potter. I can't call her a "fundie" but they've got their claws into her and that scares me.

[LoZoccolo]

20. What are her views on wave-particle duality?

Do you get all mad at her about those?

[JAbuchan08]

26. I didn't ever get mad at her, I don't remember having ever expressed

anger at her over her beliefs either in my posts here, or in my conversation with her on the phone. I was frustrated. I told her I was a little "ticked off" at her church, but I never expressed anger at her, you've made a leap of logic there. I love my sister and wouldn't get angry at her for soemthing so petty. She actually felt the need to assure me that she wasn't angry at me! I could tell that she was upset that I cut off our debate, but I simply wasn't prepared to defend my views. It hadn't occured to me that I would have to prep evolution debate points for a conversation with my sister.

[Bill McBlueState]

22. my wife is having the same experience with her sister

Her sister recently married into a very conservative fundamentalist family. At their wedding, they went full-on with the "Wives should submit to their husbands." We wonder how much my wife's sister really buys into everything, since she comes from a long line of independent-minded women, but she appears to really be into it.

My wife and her sister can still have civil conversations, but my sister- and brother-in-laws' drastically different worldview will keep us as a couple from ever having a really close relationship with them.

[bowens43]

24. You should care VERY much about this issue.

It is a symptom of a much larger problem. The problem is fundamentalism. When people begin to chose ignorance over knowledge we are in big trouble. The people pushing this creationist nonsense are every bit as dangerous as the Taliban was in Afghanistan. To them global warming is 'junk science', freedom comes second to the laws of God, respect is reserved for those who believe as they do, war is waged in the name of God (jihad), and those who live in poverty do so because they are lazy and haven't used the gifts that God has given them. The ignorance of fundamentalism is at the root of many of the issues the world faces to today.

[LoZoccolo]

25. That's why I mentioned all those other issues I care about.

But this...I really don't care that much about.

I think all this guy'll succeed in doing is convincing his sister that there are evolution "fundys" that are staid on certain things too.

[Liberal Veteran]

29. I think watching someone spiral downward....

...into cultish psuedo-scientific nonsense is very disconcerting and indicative of a much larger problem in our society.

Apologizing or ignoring this kind of thing is exactly why mainstream Christianity in the US has become dangerous. They are intent not only in believing this, but TEACHING it in our schools to the exclusion of real science. That also includes crossing over into the realm of "human rights" which to the Christo-fascists means forces everyone to celebrate Christian holidays, indoctrination through prayer in the schools, ignoring the environment because God "gave" it to us to use as we see fit, freedom becomes limited as non-Christians are marginalized, respect and human rights for all is denied to people because of what a several thousand year old book of dogma says.

I can well understand being concerned by seeing otherwise intelligent people fall into this and making light of it because it doesn't fit your "top" concerns is simple case of missing the root cause of lot of the problems you are concerned with. It's akin to waiting until cancer starts causing symptoms until addressing the issue.

[LoZoccolo]

31. This is similiar to the notion...

...that social programs will lead to a totalitarian government that people on the right spread around.

Nuance.

If anything, this is the kind of thing that makes it so easy for people to believe it when the GOP sends that flyer around saying that we want to "ban the Bible".

[phantom power]

5. I hesitate to go there, but in a sense, there is "micro" and "macro"

evolution. There are no well-established theories about speciations. The "big-leaps" that evolution seems to make on occasion. It's often described as punctuated equilibrium, but that's more descriptive than it is explanitory.

By this, I don't mean to say that there are no theories regarding evolutionary leaps, but this phenomenon is not as well understood as the "mircro" variety, for instance the changes induced by our breeding of animals like dogs.

Of course, my response to such open problems is to study them, whereas the fundamentalist response seems to be "declare it impossible, and teach creationism in biology class".

[mondo joe]

6. Explain to her that MACRO is just lots of MICRO

All MACRO evolution is is a whole lot of microoevolution.

What she's saying is the equivalent of "I believe people can walk 24 inches at a time, but I don't believe anyone can take a one-mile step".

And the answer is "No one says you can take a one mile step. But you can take a lot of two-feet steps that get you to a mile."

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

10. May I suggest you get her a copy of Nov. National Geographic?

The title of the Nov 2004 National Geographic magazine cover:

WAS DARWIN WRONG?

The article inside begins with a giant 'NO' and goes on to explore all the reasons why. Great writing in a well respected scientific magazine.

[Downtown Hound]

11. "Macro" changes in evolution

occur when there are changes at the "micro" level. It takes millions of years to play out though. Tell her to read an anthropology textbook.

[DrWeird]

15. Not necessarily.

Single point mutations have been shown to induce major changes in morphology.

[Downtown Hound]

21. This is true

But most single point mutations don't survive. A species that has mutated must be able to survive and then reproduce, and eventualy adapt to its surroundings. This takes time.

Thanks for your input. It's been awhile since I've studied the topic. :hi:

[Bill McBlueState]

17. millions of years

See, I think part of the problem is that people have a very hard time understanding just how long "millions of years" really is. A failure to grasp the magnitude of very large and very small numbers is a common source of scientific misunderstandings, as evidenced by the popularity of the lottery.

But then, a lot of these folks deny that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old from the start.

[bowens43]

18. There is no such thing as 'macro-evolution'.

It's just more creationist nonsense. Evolution is evolution. Small changes over time.

[phantom power]

23. Actually, that's very debatable.

Evolution is turning out to be a very subtle field of study. There are many mechanisms by which evolution can occur, and most aren't very well understood.

I recommend reading Stuart Kauffman, particularly his layman's book "At Home in the Universe".

[bowens43]

28. There is no serious work suggesting

that a change from one species to another can occur in a single generation. When fundis talk about macro evolution they are talking about a fish giving birth to a lizard.

[phantom power]

30. I would not rule out speciation in a single generation.

Most serious research has focused on more gradualist mechanisms, because they are easier to understand. But that's starting to change.

I've got no links to back up my claims, however, I'll keep my eyes peeled. In the meantime, I'll insert another plug for Stuart Kauffman's work on evolutionary models.

[SnowGoose]

27. Useful resource: http://www.talkorigins.org/

Many many great articles. One argument from an article there I thought was superb. It goes something like this:

(this is a true story, BTW) Some time ago, in New York (if memory serves) a company put together a phone directory of building contractors. A while later a rival company came out with a similar directory, and was sued by the first company for copyright infringement. In court, the second company argued that while, yes, their book was extremely similar to company #1's book, that was to be expected, since it was covering basically the same information.

Ah ha! the second company argued - we got you, because we had some accidental misprints (got some numbers wrong, misspelled some names, not really surprising when you stop to think about it). And, sure enough, the second company had the *exact* same misprints. Case closed - company # 2 got their information by copying out of company # 1's book. Could you really believe otherwise?

Now on to evolution - many people don't realize this, but virtually all mammals can make their own vitamin C, so it's not required in the diet. Exceptions are humans, apes, and guinea pigs. Now we have reached the level of sophistication that allows us to look at the enzymes these animals use to make vitamin C in their bodies. Not only that, but the genes for these enzyme have also been found in humans and apes, but one key enzyme in the pathway has a mutation which renders it ineffective (presumably, our ancestors' diet was rich enough in vitamin C that lacking the enzyme didn't confer too much of a disadvantage).

Now dig this: out of hundreds of 'letters' in the gene, the mutation (or misspelling) is *exactly* the same one, which is just what you'd expect if both humans and apes had inherited the mutated gene from a common ancestor. Just as it stretched credibility to claim that company # 2 just happened accidental to get exactly the same misprints as company # 1 by chance, it just doesn't make sense to claim that humans and apes just happened to have *exactly* the same mutation in the same gene by chance.

The kicker: remember that guinea pigs also can't make vitamin C? Given that humans and guinea pigs are only distantly related, do you think we have the same mutation in the gene? Of course not, they have a completely different mutation.

I don't see how someone who's primary wish is to know the truth can dismiss these facts. Humans and apes shared a common ancestor. That's just the truth.