Every time I get into it with creationist folks, they invariably start to split hairs between "macro" and "micro" evolution, as if they're two wildly different (and fought over) concepts in evolutionary biology.
They seem to think that macro-evolution is when a single generation of animal suddenly changes into another one on a whim.
Too bad that never happens.
Here's how I explain it to them. They usually get extremely angry very quickly; typical of folks with no legs to stand on.
Take a quarter and put it on a flat surface, in the middle of the farthest left side. If possible, get some dice.
Take the quarter and move it all the way over to the other side of the surface. Tell them that's macroevolution. Put the quarter back.
Roll the dice. For rolling 1 & 2, move the quarter up an inch. For 3&4, move it down an inch. For 5&6, move it forward an inch.
Do this until the quarter finally gets to the other side. That's microevolution. The end result is the same, but there's less voodoo.
The movements up and down are generatinoal changes that don't benefit the animal in any way. The movements forward could be construed as "beneficial" evolution, but obviously it's completely random. The dice equals natural genetic variances and mutations (ie dna errors).
Yeah, it's a bit simplistic, and doesn't take everything into account, but it's a good way to get a discussion going. If they dodge it, they're not really worth talking to.
It's also always good to ask them if they ever got a cold. Ask them why they get a cold every year. Squirm, squirm, squirm.
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Explaining evolution in a non-scientific manner. |
|
|
Lordfly Digeridoo
Prim Orchestrator
Join date: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 3,628
|
08-03-2006 07:44
_____________________
----
http://www.lordfly.com/ http://www.twitter.com/lordfly http://www.plurk.com/lordfly |
|
Billybob Goodliffe
NINJA WIZARDS!
Join date: 22 Dec 2005
Posts: 4,036
|
08-03-2006 07:49
I won't cloud the topic with my beliefs which blend both camps together
_____________________
If life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade and try and find someone who's life has given them vodka and have a party!
I asked God directly, and he says you're a douchebag.  Commander of the Militant Wing of the Salvation Army http://e-pec.info/forum/blog/billybob_goodliffe |
|
Lordfly Digeridoo
Prim Orchestrator
Join date: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 3,628
|
08-03-2006 07:53
I won't cloud the topic with my beliefs which blend both camps together I've no problem with that. Religion doesn't specifically rule out evolution, just like it doesn't rule out quantum physics or the theory of relativity. I've got my own faith system that includes and embraces science. I just dislike people that use the Bible as a shield against learning. _____________________
----
http://www.lordfly.com/ http://www.twitter.com/lordfly http://www.plurk.com/lordfly |
|
Syrrh Hurnung
Registered User
Join date: 9 Jul 2006
Posts: 55
|
08-03-2006 08:03
Heck, my 9th grade biology teacher was a pretty strict Catholic. She didn't have any problems teaching evolution, and she did it in such a way that made perfect sense all the way from protozoa to current complex forms. There was no mystery in the process, there was no sudden leap from one stage to a completely different one.
Thus, I usually tend to think of evolution-naysayers as basically someone who failed high school biology class. Lordfly, I would suggest changing your model though. Don't use quarters, use a stack of pennies. Then in the microevolution example, whenever you roll an odd number, leave a penny behind. That critter didn't go extinct, it just branched. |
|
Cindy Claveau
Gignowanasanafonicon
Join date: 16 May 2005
Posts: 2,008
|
08-03-2006 08:14
The movements up and down are generatinoal changes that don't benefit the animal in any way. The movements forward could be construed as "beneficial" evolution, but obviously it's completely random. The dice equals natural genetic variances and mutations (ie dna errors). I like your metaphor, Lordfly. It skips a bunch of steps but that's what you have to do if you're going to simplify things. Most scientists who have been working to stem the tide of Creationism are openly admitting that they don't do a good job of presenting evolution in layman's terms. That's where people like Kenneth Miller have done such a great job. I loved Dawkins' "weasel program" explanation: I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence? He agreed with Creationists that, if the monkey had to completely re-generate the entire string every time he searched for the next letter it would take an inordinate, impossible length of time. (Before typing "Methinks", it would have to randomly re-select "M", "e", "t", "h", etc., each time). But that's not how selection works. In Nature, once the "M" is found, it does not have to be re-generated. We can increase the speed of our process by accepting each letter as we move on to search for the next in the sequence. The difference was that, using the first method, it would require a monkey more time than has existed in the life of the universe. Using the weasel program, he successfully generated the resulting phrase in 43 generations. _____________________
|
|
Zuzu Fassbinder
Little Miss No Tomorrow
Join date: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 2,048
|
08-03-2006 08:24
Heck, my 9th grade biology teacher was a pretty strict Catholic. I went to Catholic school for 10 of my first 12 years in school. We were never taught creationism as anything but metaphor. In science class it was evolution. Fifty years ago Pope Pius XII said almost the same thing in the encyclical Humani generis: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter." from this (somewhat dated?) article _____________________
I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. |
|
Ghoti Nyak
καλλιστι
Join date: 7 Aug 2004
Posts: 2,078
|
08-03-2006 09:43
It's also always good to ask them if they ever got a cold. Ask them why they get a cold every year. Squirm, squirm, squirm. It's God's punishment for losing Evolution/Creation arguments with unbelievers. -Ghoti _____________________
"Sometimes I believe that this less material life is our truer life, and that our vain presence on the terraqueous globe is itself the secondary or merely virtual phenomenon." ~ H.P. Lovecraft
|