Refusal to complete a scientific course on ideological grounds

[Gillianren]

That's not what the term means. There still isn't any difference between them, but "microevolution" is before speciation and "macroevolution" is changes that create speciation. What's fun is trying to get creationists to explain how the former stops before the latter.

[Van Rijn]

That's not what the term means. There still isn't any difference between them, but "microevolution" is before speciation and "macroevolution" is changes that create speciation.

Actually, that's not quite it, either. You can find variations on the definition too. Here's one:

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Macroevolution

Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

[Gillianren]

Either way, it has nothing to do with human vision per se.

[HenrikOlsen]

The way I've seen the terms used by those creationists who purport to accept evolution to a small degree is that micro evolution was what turned the proto-bears made by the creator into polar, brown black etc. bears, while macro evolution is the, for them unacceptable, idea that they're related to chimpanzees.

The distinction is mainly done in order to reject macro evolution rather than for any scientific reason so the use of those terms tend to indicate creationism is involved in the discussion somehow, if only as the cause of it.

[Cobra1597]

That's not what the term means. There still isn't any difference between them, but "microevolution" is before speciation and "macroevolution" is changes that create speciation. What's fun is trying to get creationists to explain how the former stops before the latter.

What does the term mean, then? If it is meant to be micro vs macro evolution, how isn't it about human vision? Microevolution isn't "small amounts of evolution," but rather evolution of microscopic organisms. At least, that is how I've seen Creationists apply the term. They are willing to accept that the evolution occurs in salmonella, but not in horses.

Organisms are micro or macroscopic based on our ability to see them, not any fundamental quality of the organism itself.

[Solfe]

I just don't understand. I take a lot of things of faith, it is important to me. Tradition and all of that. But I don't let that stuff interfere with my ability to accept or understand a perfectly reasonable theory.

If anything is worth paying attention to, its a theory that can be broken by reason or observation by it's own definitions. More importantly, knowing that there are hundreds, if not thousands of trained observers/specialists attempting to make evolution clearer and more detailed theory at the risk of actually really breaking it*, is somewhat reassuring.

Solfe

*I think all theories are meant to be broken. Look at the way the formation of moon theory changed. We still have "A theory of how the moon formed" and I would expect the same if someone really broke evolution. The form would change, but the name and basic idea would not.

[Van Rijn]

What does the term mean, then? If it is meant to be micro vs macro evolution, how isn't it about human vision? Microevolution isn't "small amounts of evolution," but rather evolution of microscopic organisms. At least, that is how I've seen Creationists apply the term.

Well, whoever said that had some major misconceptions about the term. As used by biologists, the terms have nothing to do with the size of the organisms. Here's one site that has an easy to read explanation of micro versus macroevolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...e/evoscales_01

[Van Rijn]

Note also the addition of 'Muslim' for the rhetorical effect (again, not wrong).

Definitely not wrong, given the sources. Again from the Sunday Times article reprinted at the Australia site:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/high...-1226208363347

has Jones (the fellow who had the concerns about biology and medical students with an anti-evolution agenda) also saying:

“I had one or two slightly frisky discussions years ago with kids who belonged to fundamentalist Christian churches ... now it is Islamic, overwhelmingly.”

and there's quite a bit more on the Muslim issue in the article.

If you don't like the word 'distortion' perhaps 'change of emphasis' would be more appropriate. Either way, it makes a mountain out of a molehill.

It is not at all obvious to me that this is a "mountain out of a molehill."

[Gillianren]

What does the term mean, then? If it is meant to be micro vs macro evolution, how isn't it about human vision? Microevolution isn't "small amounts of evolution," but rather evolution of microscopic organisms. At least, that is how I've seen Creationists apply the term. They are willing to accept that the evolution occurs in salmonella, but not in horses.

Organisms are micro or macroscopic based on our ability to see them, not any fundamental quality of the organism itself.

Yes. But the term isn't when it refers to evolution, and it seems that the creationists you know are actually ignorant of the buzz words. Try this one.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

[HenrikOlsen]

What does the term mean, then? If it is meant to be micro vs macro evolution, how isn't it about human vision? Microevolution isn't "small amounts of evolution," but rather evolution of microscopic organisms. At least, that is how I've seen Creationists apply the term. They are willing to accept that the evolution occurs in salmonella, but not in horses.

Creationists have no problems with evolution IN horses, it's obviously true, we've been breeding them for centuries to run raster, it's the evolution OF horses that's their problem.

I can see how that misconception came about, since microorganisms evolve a lot faster so they're the ones that show most change within the micro evolutionary time line..

The main creationist argument against evolution being able to produce new species is that, according to them, there haven't been enough time since the creation.

It's vaguely defined, but have nothing to do with microscopic vs. macroscopic.
It's more like the split between micro economics and macro economics, which in the same way isn't a split into amoebae discussing who gets what sugar molecule and us squabbling over who gets the next stimulus package.

[Van Rijn]

The main creationist argument against evolution being able to produce new species is that, according to them, there haven't been enough time since the creation.

As a clarification, that would be a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) argument. Some of the other creationists (like, for instance, evolutionary creationists) wouldn't make such arguments.