Interesting take on macro evolution

[Joemonkey]

Stolen from Reddit btw...

 

[highland145]

Green.

 

[Gibsons]

It's amazing how god is able to change font colors.

 

[Vette73]

Green.

3


sdfsdfdf dfsdfdsf sdsfdsfdsf sdfsdfd sdfdsfsdf

 

[Veliko]

Clearly it was fabricated in the same Area 51 studio as the Apollo moon landings.

 

[DrPizza]

That's a pretty awesome explanation - a lot easier with that example embedded in the explanation than with words alone.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Ahh, now this is a very nice take on the nature of continuous variation and population change! Definitely using this in lecture. Thanks for the link.

 

[DrPizza]

It's a great response for people who "well, yeah, I believe in micro evolution, but I don't believe in macro evolution."

 

[rivan]

:thumbsup:

Good stuff.

 

[Anneka]

who can remember the first purple, blue, whatever, word? I was paying attention to the text.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Also a good, if indirect illustration of the uselessness of the concept of a 'missing link.' Where are the links between the colors?

 

[Jeff7]

Also a good, if indirect illustration of the uselessness of the concept of a 'missing link.' Where are the links between the colors?

It's like reading the Bible - you have to read between the lines, to see what isn't actually there. :awe:

 

[destrekor]

That's an amazing example.
And it still makes sense for
<------ this mildly color-deficient individual.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

It's a great response for people who "well, yeah, I believe in micro evolution, but I don't believe in macro evolution."

Which might be even worse than saying that evolution is "false"...

 

[Juddog]

Maybe the author should write it out in crayons instead, since that's about the intellectual level of some of the creationists that we're dealing with.

 

[Minjin]

Yeah but now you've created a bunch of color gaps that must be filled. Until you can find those missing colors, it was obviously god.

 

[Malak]

That's a pretty awesome explanation - a lot easier with that example embedded in the explanation than with words alone.

It completely over-simplifies it. Biological changes are not anywhere near similar to hue changes. This description hides all the complexity and reason why many don't agree with evolution.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

It completely over-simplifies it. Biological changes are not anywhere near similar to hue changes. This description hides all the complexity and reason why many don't agree with evolution.

No. The description is for people who claim that they believe they believe in Micro evolution but not macro. This picture claims that it's nonsensical to say that because by definition microevolution leads to macroevolution. There is no one point where you can say microevolution has become macroevolution, but there is a gradual shift where you have to admit macro evolution has happened.

 

[ichy]

It completely over-simplifies it. Biological changes are not anywhere near similar to hue changes. This description hides all the complexity and reason why many don't agree with evolution.

People don't "agree" with evolution either because they're ignorant or because they're engaging in willing suspension of disbelief.

 

[jonks]

I didn't come from no monkey.

 

[ichy]

No. The description is for people who claim that they believe they believe in Micro evolution but not macro. This picture claims that it's nonsensical to say that because by definition microevolution leads to macroevolution. There is no one point where you can say microevolution has become macroevolution, but there is a gradual shift where you have to admit macro evolution has happened.

I've never heard a really biologist even use the terms macro or microevolution. It seems to be a nonsense term that only the creationist bible-thumpers throw around.

 

[Malak]

No. The description is for people who claim that they believe they believe in Micro evolution but not macro. This picture claims that it's nonsensical to say that because by definition microevolution leads to macroevolution. There is no one point where you can say microevolution has become macroevolution, but there is a gradual shift where you have to admit macro evolution has happened.

I'll say it again. It oversimplifies biology. You cannot compare hue changes to biological changes.

 

[DrPizza]

It completely over-simplifies it. Biological changes are not anywhere near similar to hue changes. This description hides all the complexity and reason why many don't agree with evolution.

Actually, no it doesn't really hide the complexity. Its point is that the changes are very gradual, sometimes occurring over 100's of thousands of years, if not longer.

I'll say it again. It oversimplifies biology. You cannot compare hue changes to biological changes.

The analogy is a wonderful one. Only a moron would declare that microevolution doesn't exist. That's because there are countless examples of microevolution. The analogy in the OP describes exactly what macroevolution is - a VERY gradual process, not an abrupt change.

 

[Malak]

Actually, no it doesn't really hide the complexity. Its point is that the changes are very gradual, sometimes occurring over 100's of thousands of years, if not longer.

There is not now, nor ever will be, any proof of any gradual biological change that can account for the diversity of life on this planet. In order for certain necessary changes to have occurred, millions of smaller changes would need to occur at the same time. There is nothing gradual about what evolutionary theorists claim to have occurred. The entire theory is nonsense from the beginning because of what you just said. The only reason theorists claim it takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions or billions, of years is because it hides the fact that there is no evidence of it at all. It neatly tucks away any responsibility of proving the theory in the unrecorded history that can never be examined.

 

[destrekor]

There is not now, nor ever will be, any proof of any gradual biological change that can account for the diversity of life on this planet. In order for certain necessary changes to have occurred, millions of smaller changes would need to occur at the same time. There is nothing gradual about what evolutionary theorists claim to have occurred. The entire theory is nonsense from the beginning because of what you just said. The only reason theorists claim it takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions or billions, of years is because it hides the fact that there is no evidence of it at all. It neatly tucks away any responsibility of proving the theory in the unrecorded history that can never be examined.

k.