Mike Huckabee and Evolution

[Surgo]

edit: Split from the presidential candidate thread.

I don't really get the Huckabee hate

How about the fact that he stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution. How the fuck do you not "believe" in evolution? That's like saying I don't believe in erosion. Or the fact that his entire campaign is a religious crusade?

Of course, Huckabee winning the primary means an easy democratic victory.

 

[Altmer]

Evolution does not require faith. It is not a belief. It is, however, scientifically far more plausible than any religious doctrine will ever be, and it is therefore dumb to ignore it. Yes, Huckabee is dumb. Then again, what's new? They're Republicans.

 

[sbc]

How about the fact that he stated he doesn't "believe" in evolution. How the fuck do you not "believe" in evolution? That's like saying I don't believe in erosion. Or the fact that his entire campaign is a religious crusade?

Of course, Huckabee winning the primary means an easy democratic victory.

Let me get this straight, you are belittling someone because they do not believe in evolution. There is evidence AGAINST evolution as well as for it, you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt. It's not as if he's saying air doesn't exist or something.

Anyhoo... I think Obama sounds pretty naive to me in some of his foreign policy. Could be a loose cannon of sorts

 

[Surgo]

Let me get this straight, you are belittling someone because they do not believe in evolution. There is evidence AGAINST evolution as well as for it, you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt. It's not as if he's saying air doesn't exist or something.

Let's see, I have done (or watched for #2) the following things in the biology lab:
* Dumped an antibiotic on a plate of bacteria. Let the remainder grow. Dumped a different antibiotic on a plate of now-antibiotic#1-resistant bacteria. Let the remainder grow. I then had bacteria resistant to two antibiotics. Are you trying to tell me this didn't happen? And if not, why don't you tell me what did happen that wasn't evolution?
* Exposed fruit flies to mutagens, watched their offspring have mutation. Can you tell me what this is if you don't think this is evolution?

Yes, saying evolution does not exist here is exactly like saying air does not exist. I sure am belittling someone for not believing in evolution, because not believing in evolution is like not believing in erosion.

As for your supposed "evidence", I'm calling bullshit unless you post exactly what it is.

 

[sbc]

I'm no biological expert or whatever but I do not see how that constitutes evolution. Gaining immunity to something you are exposed to somehow explains how single-celled organisms became humans? Passing mutated genes on to your offspring also explains that too?

And if you want evidence, take a quick google and read up yourself.

 

[Surgo]

I'm no biological expert or whatever but I do not see how that constitutes evolution.

Then maybe you should stay out of topics you don't understand because that's the bloody definition of evolution: the change in inherited traits from one generation to the next.

And if you want evidence, take a quick google and read up yourself.

Stop hemming and hawwing and fucking put up your evidence if you even have any.

 

[sbc]

Are you telling me that because bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics, that fully explains how single-celled organisms can become a human? When evolutionists lay out their reasons for their theories I don't heard them talking about a simple lab experiment, do you?

Anyway, this is another argument

 

[CaptKirby]

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
I think that pretty much sums up how people defend not believing in any evolution at all.

I think microevolution is 100% true, but I am still skeptical about macroevolution being entirely plausible. Used to when I was Christian I would deny believing in evolution altogether, but I have pretty much always believed in micro and not macro!

 

[Surgo]

Are you telling me that because bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics, that fully explains how single-celled organisms can become a human? When evolutionists lay out their reasons for their theories I don't heard them talking about a simple lab experiment, do you?

You are leaping on to another topic entirely. We are talking about evolution. Mike Huckabee is talking about evolution. And when someone says they don't believe in evolution, they are saying they don't believe in exactly what I was just talking about.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Complete bullshit. For one thing, "Richard Leakey" never found a "normal human skull". He found a skull with half the cranial capacity of an ordinary human. Not quite an "ordinary human", huh? And wait, what's that? What does even the Institute for Creation Research have to say about this?

The cranial capacity of 1470 has been estimated by Leakey to be only about 800 cc. While this is greatly in excess of that reported for the australopithecines (450 - 550 cc), and, considering its alleged antiquity, it is called "large-brained", yet this is below the range for modern man (about 1000 - 2000 cc, with a mean of about 1450 cc).

Wow, that's really an "ordinary human" there.

And what about this Richard Leakey guy's credentials to actually make these sort of claims?

Richard Leakey does not hold a Ph.D. in anthropology. In fact, he has no degree of any kind. He has never been to college.

We also know the age of the fossils through radiocarbon dating. Oh shit.

 

[obi]

"Macroevolution" is just "Microevolution" on a grander scale. Given a large enough change in genotype, you will eventually get a change in phenotype, which is what I'm assuming is the difference between the two?

(genotype is essentially the genes, phenotype is the stuff you can see like whether it has limbs, skin color, etc.)

Virtually all visible evolutionary changes occur slowly over time.

 

[Surgo]

I have yet to have someone give me an actual definition of "microevolution" and "macroevolution". I would love for someone to actually do this, it would contribute greatly towards clearing the air of bullshit.

 

[Agamemnon]

microevolution is the evolution of anything below the species level, e.g. changes in alleles frequencies and evolution within a species

macroevolution is the evolution of species and populations

bio major saves the day!

 

[Surgo]

macroevolution is the evolution of species and populations

Then it's impossible to "disbelieve" in macroevolution as well, because the differentiation between species is sexual incompatability and you can mutate something enough to generate a new species.

 

[Agamemnon]

surgo, im not sure what you mean. can you explain more please? what do you mean by differentiation? because there are more factors besides sexual incompatibility that can differ species.

 

[Surgo]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but a species exists when their members can breed with each other and produce offspring, yes? So if newly-mutated members can no longer breed and produce offspring with one species, they must be a new species?

If there are more factors than that for groups that reproduce sexually, please explain.

 

[Mexi-Kade]

Well from the little I know, microevolution are mutations that are observable, such as your example of bacteria gaining immunities from being exposed to antibiotics. They are small changes, i.e micro, in that they don't completely change the species into something completely different. Macroevolution is basically various microevolutions that have occured over a long period of time, to the point that a species has become something different, like a dinosaur to a chicken or a monkey to a human.

In short, micro is change from one generation to the next while macro is the culmination of these micro changes to the point it can be considered a new species/organism.

 

[Agamemnon]

you are kind of right. the best example i can think of is the mule. it is a hybrid horse-donkey offspring. however mules are infertile. they are their own species, yet they cannot breed themselves. there are many other hybrids, ligers, "beefaloes," etc.

however, if you look at labs, there are 3 different colors they can be. yellow, brown (also known as chocolate), and black. the color they show phenotypically is based on the genotype they are. im not going to get into the details of which allele combinations produce which colors. granted it is not a evolution, but it shows you how alleles can change phenotypes.


now as far as the other things that prevent mating, there are environmental and reproductive factors that play a role. i cannot remember all of them, nor do i have appropriate text in which i can look it up, sorry. but some i do remember include for environment are time of day, geographic isolation, etc. for reproductive, there is infertility, gamete incompatiblity, etc.

im not sure if that answers your question. but if it does great. also, i all my resources are back in my dorm room. im still on break here, so im not very prepared for this. XD

 

[Agamemnon]

Well from the little I know, microevolution are mutations that are observable, such as your example of bacteria gaining immunities from being exposed to antibiotics. They are small changes, i.e micro, in that they don't completely change the species into something completely different. Macroevolution is basically various microevolutions that have occured over a long period of time, to the point that a species has become something different, like a dinosaur to a chicken or a monkey to a human.

In short, micro is change from one generation to the next while macro is the culmination of these micro changes to the point it can be considered a new species/organism.

that is completely wrong, sorry. all evolution is from one generation to another. ive already defined both of these, look above ;)

sorry about the double post

 

[Odinwolf]

Let's see, I have done (or watched for #2) the following things in the biology lab:
* Dumped an antibiotic on a plate of bacteria. Let the remainder grow. Dumped a different antibiotic on a plate of now-antibiotic#1-resistant bacteria. Let the remainder grow. I then had bacteria resistant to two antibiotics. Are you trying to tell me this didn't happen? And if not, why don't you tell me what did happen that wasn't evolution?
* Exposed fruit flies to mutagens, watched their offspring have mutation. Can you tell me what this is if you don't think this is evolution?

Actually Surgo, neither of those things is evolution. The bacteria didn't evolve a resistance to the antibiotic. Those members of the bacteria culture that were ALREADY resistant to the antibiotic survived the exposure and then reproduced, passing the genes along. The same thing happened in the next batch. That's an example of natural selection and population shift. No evolution took place because no new genetic material was created from the process.

natural selection =/= evolution, even if it is a part of the process

In the case of the flies, you exposed them to something that damaged their DNA and caused them to create offspring with damaged DNA as well. That's an example of mutation and heredity. However, unless those mutations were beneficial and the strengthened mutated flies in such a way that they would eventually replace "normal" flies when reintroduced to the general population, then that's not evolution either.

mutation =/= evolution, even if it is a part of the process

So no. Neither of those things are evolution. You witnessed components that may very well combine with other factors to create a process of evolution, but neither instances were a true case of evolutionary biology. I'm surprised someone as smart as you would use flimsy arguments to make your point.

BTW, I think Huckabee is a tool too. I just don't think you should get away with being intellectually dishonest to prove your point.

 

[CaptKirby]

Err looks like I kind of spun the topic in a new direction, so sorry if I ruined the intent. Anyway, I always took macroevolution to mean the evolution of one species into something new, i.e. monkey to human, and I am skeptical to this! It might be true, and I might be wrong to be skeptical, but microevolution is clearly true (which obviously lends to macroevolution being true, but I reserve the right to be skeptical!) You can force mutations, and if those mutations cannot reproduce at all, then that is not really evolution to me!

EDIT: Odinwolf, that is a very lucid post, and it helped me make a little more sense of my own arguments :)

EDIT 2: Agamemnon, you can edit your second post into your first post, and then delete the second, if you care to remedy your double post yourself.

 

[Agamemnon]

yes odinwolf knows exactly what he/she is talking about. very clear explanation. well done

edit: meh, i dont it will matter too much. both posts were legitimate.

 

[Big Bayou]

At least in a Western context, you have three big paths to choose.

1. Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

2. Intelligent Design: The view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece.

3. Stricter strains of Creationism: All life was created by God, as described in the book of Genesis.

Now I'd like to point out before going on that evolution and Christianity are not irreconcilable. More subjective interpretations of the Bible that take hermeneutics into account and reject a more literal approach do exist (see Inherit the Wind). The issue here boils down to Mike Huckabee (and others like him) adhering to a decidedly religious ideology and at the same time treating it as an equally viable scientific outlook, despite the fact it has a meager, if not nonexistent, scientific basis.

I think people should be exposed to evolution. They should be taught that, yes, this is the prevailing scientific view, but that there are others who happen to view things differently.

A quote from the big dog himself. "Prevailing scientific view" is putting it lightly, since evolutionary theory itself constitutes a huge part of the foundation of modern biology, zoology and especially paleontology. How many creationist paleontologists do you think exist? Despite Huckabee's careful choice of words in his last sentence, it is still obvious that he wishes Creationism/Intelligent Design to be represented alongside Evolution in a classroom setting. But religion does not belong in school.

Creationism and its pseudoscience incarnation, Intelligent Design, are religious beliefs, not in the same realm at all as scientific theories like Evolution. I do not trust the presidency with anyone who assumes they should be grouped together.

 

[Agamemnon]

I do not trust the presidency with anyone who assumes they should be grouped together.

agreed.

there has been so much debate about teaching evolution vs. creationism. the earliest date in history in which i remember with this debate getting serious was the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925.

 

[Surgo]

Odinwolf: Yeah, you're certainly right on point #1 (the bacteria), and I was being pretty foolish for not noticing that problem beforehand.

I'll contest #2, though. If we're operating under the definition of evolution as "the change in inherited traits from one generation to the next" (from post 6 in this thread), #2 certainly counts as evolution. There doesn't need to be selective pressure to have evolution.

Is that bullshit? Yeah, maybe it is, and I'll surely admit it if it is so and reformulate my argument against Huckabee so it doesn't involve bullshit. Could somebody bust out the biology book and give the textbook definition of evolution?

 

[Agamemnon]

evolution is merely the change in inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next.