decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Not this old chestnut again | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Not this old chestnut again
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 09:19 PM EDT
talkorigins evidence link

or you could read How creationists misuse macro and micro

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Might be worth actually reading Darwin..
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 10:29 PM EDT
You would find that he was very much a Christian, and very much
concened with macro evolution.
You might also want to carefully prove that the word "Day" wasn't
as in heyday or era.

Off to ride my zorse, and go train giraffes.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Drug resistant bacteria say 'Hi'
Authored by: bprice on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 12:39 AM EDT
Even the most vocal young earth creationsists[sic] make a distinction between micro and macro evolution.
The only issue with a distinction between micro- and macro-evolution is defining what the distinction is. Since the concept-space it's addressing is a continuum, to make a distinction requires an exact 'bright line' separating the two ideas. No such bright line has ever been proposed; YECs have been challenged to produce some definition, but so far they have refused to do so.

Such a definition would perforce define how a sequence of micro-evolution steps is prevented from becoming a macro-evolution step.

Micro evolution is valid science and is observable in the real world within human lifetimes. Darwin's work is almost entierly[sic] micro evolution.
Actually, Darwin's work observing "micro-evolution" was done in a context where he was making a synthesis between that and the "macro-evolution" that had been known for years, studied in palaeontological expeditions and museum contributions from such expeditions. Evolution was a well-known phenomenon in the 19th century – Darwin's breakthrough was the understanding that the well-known "macro-evolution" phenomena were merely a consequence of observable "micro-evolution" steps.
Micro evolution is not incompatable[sic] with creation. Drug resistant bacteria are micro evolution.
Macro Evolution is single cell -> multi cell -> invertibrates[sic] -> fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> birds -> mammals.
We'll not argue the errors in ancestry here (e. g., birds are not ancestral to mammals nor reptiles to birds).
Macro evolution goes beyond anything that could possibly be proven by the scientific method and even then it is not incompatible with creation (except to the young earth creationists) until you add abiogenisis[sic]. Abiogenisis[sic] is straight out anti-science.
But it's the YECs that add abiogenesis to the discussion. The theory of evolution is invariant over all aspects of the origin of the early forms of life — abiogenesis is neither part of ToE nor does ToE depend on it (except to the extent that simple living organisms existed at one time, some billions of years ago). The only prerequisites for ToE are
  • imperfect replication of organisms (e, g, each human has about 100 imperfections in its genes – differences between its parental genes and its own) and
  • an environment which can affect the likelihood of those genes being further replicated, based on the particular effects of the genes within the environment.

    Abiogenesis is a specific area within biophysics and/or biochemistry. Other fields of science may also have interest in it. What basis could exist for a claim that such a scientific endeavour is "anti-science"?

    Most of the people pushing Evolution in the public sphere, particularly when it comes to teaching evolution below the college level are explicitly pusing[sic] it as a disproof of creation/religion. It can not stand as such a disproof without abiogenisis[sic] which is unscientific.
    Since abiogenesis is irrelevant to ToE, this last statement is null. As to the teaching of science – ToE can never disprove religions, and has never been realistically sold as doing so. What it does, however, is to demonstrate that the creation conjectures of most religions are (a) not necessary to an understanding of reality; and (b) contrary to observation of reality. If a religion cannot stand the test of reality, its adherents might well feel threatened – but it's not ToE that's the problem, it's the contra-factual imaginings of the religions.

    --Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine.

    [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )