PDA

View Full Version : Refusal to complete a scientific course on ideological grounds



wd40
2011-Nov-29, 09:17 PM
Ignoring the religious aspect, but unlike dedicated YEC Creationists who make up only a tiny % of the UK population, Muslims are a very large minority in the UK, especially in the medical world.

If they refuse to complete parts of their course, will they be failed.

Or will the medical school rules have to be revised, with a knock on effect on other parts of education and society?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066795/Muslim-students-walking-lectures-Darwinism-clashes-Koran.html

Perikles
2011-Nov-29, 09:24 PM
Or will the medical school rules have to be revised, with a knock on effect on other parts of education and society?
With absolutely typical Daily Mail skew on things, focussing on the medical students and not biology students, the issue is probably totally without consequence. The biology students who have a problem should switch to courses which don't conflict (why study biology when there are obvious problems?), and I suspect that Darwinism has very little significance for a medical degree anyway.

captain swoop
2011-Nov-29, 10:13 PM
Are Muslims a 'very large minority in the UK'?

How many Muslim Medical Students are refusing to complete parts of their course?

Van Rijn
2011-Nov-29, 11:34 PM
With absolutely typical Daily Mail skew on things, focussing on the medical students and not biology students, the issue is probably totally without consequence.


Well, except for understanding heredity, or evolution of disease organisms, etc. That's important in a practice or if they expect to do research.



The biology students who have a problem should switch to courses which don't conflict (why study biology when there are obvious problems?), and I suspect that Darwinism has very little significance for a medical degree anyway.

I do think it has significance. Also, in general, I don't want a doctor that picks and chooses what relevant science he's willing to accept. I don't care too much what a doctor thinks about astronomy related subjects, but biology is another matter.

Gillianren
2011-Nov-30, 12:16 AM
There was a Doonesbury strip some years ago which suggested that doctors ask patients with tuberculosis whether they believed in evolution or not. If they do, they can have the medication which works. If they don't, they can have the medication which used to work.

KaiYeves
2011-Nov-30, 12:26 AM
There was a Doonesbury strip some years ago which suggested that doctors ask patients with tuberculosis whether they believed in evolution or not. If they do, they can have the medication which works. If they don't, they can have the medication which used to work.
I remember seeing that one.

wd40
2011-Nov-30, 01:48 AM
A placebo has often been found to make the patient feel better even if he's told that it's a placebo!

Cobra1597
2011-Nov-30, 01:53 AM
A placebo has often been found to make the patient feel better even if he's told that it's a placebo!
So? Even if true, what does that have to do with your thread?

Gillianren
2011-Nov-30, 02:19 AM
And no placebo has ever been found to cure tuberculosis.

Swift
2011-Nov-30, 02:42 AM
As this topic is a little bit borderline, a little preventative "medicine" from the Moderation Team.

Though about religion, this topic would seem to be included in our exceptions to Rule 12 - the no politics/ no religion rule. In particular, the exception of "Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions."

However, there are no exceptions to the civility rules, doubly so with this topic, and if the discussion gets out of hand, it will be closed and infractions given.

I would also ask that we not derail the thread into a discussion about placebos.

wd40
2011-Dec-01, 02:56 PM
I recall from the year I studied in medical school the physiology professor literally starting to cry while describing the human blood clotting cascade system, him describing it slowly and loudly "as having been designed like this". And a junior physiology lecturer starting to sob similarly when describing the counter-current urine concentration system in the kidneys, also using the word "design". And a highly agitated junior anatomy lecturer (ie a trainee surgeon) literally cracking up in ecstatic tears when awingly describing the "superb design of the trochlea pully of the superior oblique"!

The words "Creator", "God" and "Evolution" were never mentioned by them. These medical instructors in white coats were not creationists nor religious, but their repeated mention of the word "design" did make an impression on the students. Today in every medical class of 50 students in the UK, 5-10 are Muslim, and one wonders what effect them walking out particularly eg the embryology course, will have on lecturers, staff, students and the exam and viva boards at the UK's 20 medical schools if this trend takes off, given that current informed has the concept of "design" as having been ostensibly scientifically discredited.

Perikles
2011-Dec-01, 03:09 PM
Today in every medical class of 50 students in the UK, 5-10 are Muslim, and one wonders what effect them walking out particularly eg the embryology course, will have on lecturers, staff, students and the exam and viva boards at the UK's 20 medical schools if this trend takes off.A trend of 10%-20% of students not attending lectures? Why would that have any effect on the staff or exam boards? Lectures are not completely necessary in a degree course. Many of my fellow students seldom attended lectures because they found it quicker and easier to read the book themselves rather than have a physicist read it (sometimes badly) to them. Others couldn't get out of bed early enough.

The student can always study what he or she wants in the library, and if they miss out on some part, then this will show up in the exam. Their problem, not a problem for the exam board. I really do not see why this should be an issue.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-01, 07:54 PM
I recall from the year I studied in medical school the physiology professor literally starting to cry while describing the human blood clotting cascade system, him describing it slowly and loudly "as having been designed like this". And a junior physiology lecturer starting to sob similarly when describing the counter-current urine concentration system in the kidneys, also using the word "design". And a highly agitated junior anatomy lecturer (ie a trainee surgeon) literally cracking up in ecstatic tears when awingly describing the "superb design of the trochlea pully of the superior oblique"!

Those sound like lousy teachers.

Van Rijn
2011-Dec-01, 11:23 PM
Those sound like lousy teachers.

Poor wording, at least, but I've often heard things like "designed by nature" or "designed by evolution." I think it's getting more attention these days because people are realizing how this can promote misconceptions.

Van Rijn
2011-Dec-01, 11:28 PM
The student can always study what he or she wants in the library, and if they miss out on some part, then this will show up in the exam. Their problem, not a problem for the exam board. I really do not see why this should be an issue.

Well, hopefully the exam will test them on their knowledge. These were people that walked out angrily, didn't want to learn the subject and were trying to change what was being taught.

Grashtel
2011-Dec-01, 11:45 PM
There was a Doonesbury strip some years ago which suggested that doctors ask patients with tuberculosis whether they believed in evolution or not. If they do, they can have the medication which works. If they don't, they can have the medication which used to work.
That is awesome (if very wrong) and is so going on my things that I will do when I become Evil Overlord of Earth list

grapes
2011-Dec-02, 12:25 AM
Those sound like lousy teachers.Because they were crying?

Gillianren
2011-Dec-02, 12:47 AM
I just think that choking up over the wonder of the "design" of certain aspects of the human body is bizarre, especially if it isn't followed by an equal discussion of how lousy the design of others is. That we work at all is a subject of great wonder.

wd40
2011-Dec-02, 12:52 AM
Is there then a difference between "Design" and "Intelligent Design"?

Van Rijn
2011-Dec-02, 01:13 AM
Is there then a difference between "Design" and "Intelligent Design"?

Yes. Only the second includes the word "intelligent." If someone makes it clear they're talking about ID, but don't always say the full term, that's another thing, but I've also heard "design" used to refer to how natural selection led to various physical features, so context is important.

danscope
2011-Dec-02, 02:27 AM
Selective learning is a problem in most fields. It has the effect of degrading the learning curve, introducing an arrogance in approach to
the body of knowledge which serves no one well at all. I have met carpenters who insist on 'sharpening' their tools on a belt sander and using a quite large hammer to burst through the wood. The blue colour of their 'edge' tells much about their professional discipline and attitude toward
genuine knowledge and process. Even after exposure to better practice, they continue in their troubled vein , and do not improve.
We "never know it all' and continue to learn and research with respect for the body of knowledge. And those others???? Shrug.
Many are called,.... and few are chosen.... in many fields.

grapes
2011-Dec-02, 03:17 AM
I just think that choking up over the wonder of the "design" of certain aspects of the human body is bizarre, especially if it isn't followed by an equal discussion of how lousy the design of others is. That we work at all is a subject of great wonder.But you don't know that it wasn't, yet you called it lousy teaching.

Still, I've felt goose bumps teaching math sometimes, especially when students are responding with rushes of insight. I've seen students squeal and nearly hyperventilate, whoop and high five. I doubt I've balanced those moments with equivalent negativity.

In fact, what's not to like about math?

Gillianren
2011-Dec-02, 04:05 AM
You want the short list or the long one?

Actually crying in class? It was one thing when my friend didn't know where his father, who worked in the Pentagon, was on 9/11. But if you're still crying in awe after having known about a thing for long enough that they're letting you teach it, I doubt your ability to impart rational knowledge.

Ilya
2011-Dec-02, 05:03 PM
There was a Doonesbury strip some years ago which suggested that doctors ask patients with tuberculosis whether they believed in evolution or not. If they do, they can have the medication which works. If they don't, they can have the medication which used to work.
Apparently it did not occur to Trudeau that it's the doctor who might not believe in evolution.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-02, 07:03 PM
Trudeau probably suffers from the same delusion I tend to--the assumption that educated=rational.

grapes
2011-Dec-03, 02:57 AM
You want the short list or the long one?Those have to be imaginary, right?

Actually crying in class? It was one thing when my friend didn't know where his father, who worked in the Pentagon, was on 9/11. But if you're still crying in awe after having known about a thing for long enough that they're letting you teach it, I doubt your ability to impart rational knowledge.I would disagree, but I might make an exception for grammar.

I just talked with a physician, and neither one of us could come up with an instance where Darwin's Theory of Evolution was medically important. Heredity, genes, genetic drift, DNA, chromosomes, sure, but Theory of Evolution per se not so much.

danscope
2011-Dec-03, 03:17 AM
I still think it reflects poorly on a medical candidate if they cannot appreciate or understand evolution.

Cobra1597
2011-Dec-03, 03:22 AM
I just talked with a physician, and neither one of us could come up with an instance where Darwin's Theory of Evolution was medically important. Heredity, genes, genetic drift, DNA, chromosomes, sure, but Theory of Evolution per se not so much.
Does your physician ever prescribe antibiotics? If so, I certainly hope they have an understanding of evolution while deciding how long a patient should be kept on antibiotics so as not to contribute to antibiotic resistant bacterial strain evolution.

grapes
2011-Dec-03, 04:09 AM
Does your physician ever prescribe antibiotics? If so, I certainly hope they have an understanding of evolution while deciding how long a patient should be kept on antibiotics so as not to contribute to antibiotic resistant bacterial strain evolution.O yes, and we discussed that (see my previous post), genetic selection and breeding too.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Dec-03, 04:44 AM
Regarding the word "design", I'm sure I've heard scientists (including Dawkins) refer to "design by (natural) selection", which is basically what evolution is. Various aspects of biology feel designed, even to those who understand that no designer was involved; indeed, design by selection leaves nothing for a designer to do.

To reinforce the point, "design" in this sense has nothing to do with "intelligent design". The latter is a Trojan Horse of a phrase. Unlike the Trojans, scientists immediately guessed what's inside the horse, and refused to let it through their city gates.

Van Rijn
2011-Dec-03, 05:07 AM
I just talked with a physician, and neither one of us could come up with an instance where Darwin's Theory of Evolution was medically important. Heredity, genes, genetic drift, DNA, chromosomes, sure, but Theory of Evolution per se not so much.


O yes, and we discussed that (see my previous post), genetic selection and breeding too.

So this physician pointed out the importance of evolutionary biology in medicine, but said it wasn't important?

Gillianren
2011-Dec-03, 05:26 AM
It's the strawman of Darwin again.

grapes
2011-Dec-03, 05:53 AM
It's the strawman of Darwin again.Eh?

grapes
2011-Dec-03, 05:55 AM
So this physician pointed out the importance of evolutionary biology in medicine, but said it wasn't important?what is the difference between evolutionary biology, and just biology?

Van Rijn
2011-Dec-03, 06:29 AM
what is the difference between evolutionary biology, and just biology?

I didn't say there was a difference. Do you think there is?

Gillianren
2011-Dec-03, 06:33 AM
Eh?

"Darwinist evolution" is a term solely used these days by people who think that the Theory of Evolution begins and ends with the work of Charles Darwin. Now, it's quite obvious that an understanding of evolution is vital to doctors, given the evolution of things like the influenza virus. But no, they certainly don't have to read Origin.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Dec-03, 08:29 AM
But no, they certainly don't have to read Origin.

They could of course listen to an abridged reading by Richard Dawkins.

(Yes I know that wasn't the point.)

grapes
2011-Dec-03, 12:39 PM
"Darwinist evolution" is a term solely used these days by people who think that the Theory of Evolution begins and ends with the work of Charles Darwin. Now, it's quite obvious that an understanding of evolution is vital to doctors, given the evolution of things like the influenza virus. But no, they certainly don't have to read Origin.What parts of the curriculum are they walking out on?

I generally associate "evolution" with species evolution, which has nothing to do with the examples about viruses and bacteria, right?

Perikles
2011-Dec-03, 12:53 PM
What parts of the curriculum are they walking out on?Exactly. I should point out that the source for this issue is the Daily Mail, which has the brief of taking the slightest religious issue and blowing it out of all proportion. It is aimed at a smalled-minded right-wing audience which for some reason takes delight in being outraged. Unfortunately, this seems to be a large proportion of the UK population. I do not think this particular issue is an issue at all.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-03, 07:12 PM
I doubt it's an issue, either, but that has nothing to do with the original source of the information.

Perikles
2011-Dec-03, 09:09 PM
I doubt it's an issue, either, but that has nothing to do with the original source of the information.True, but the original source is nothing but this statement by one professor:

Steve Jones emeritus professor of human genetics at university college London has questioned why such students would want to study biology at all when it obviously conflicts with their beliefs. The Daily Mail has picked up on this, converted it into professors and included medical students in what is clearly an issue for biology students. This cynical distortion is just typical for this excuse for a newspaper, which should never be cited as a source of information.

Van Rijn
2011-Dec-03, 09:19 PM
What parts of the curriculum are they walking out on?


Well, we can hope they are only choosing to ignore details of evolution that aren't relevant to medical careers, but I see no reason to assume that.



I generally associate "evolution" with species evolution, which has nothing to do with the examples about viruses and bacteria, right?

How does it not? It's all evolution.

Van Rijn
2011-Dec-03, 09:32 PM
The Daily Mail has picked up on this, converted it into professors and included medical students in what is clearly an issue for biology students. This cynical distortion is just typical for this excuse for a newspaper, which should never be cited as a source of information.

Medical students take courses in biology. Anyway, the first sentence of the article says:


Muslim students, including trainee doctors on one of Britain's leading medical courses, are walking out of lectures on evolution claiming it conflicts with creationist ideas established in the Koran.

(Emphasis added). Now, if you have references to show this is wrong, great.

Cobra1597
2011-Dec-04, 03:29 AM
O yes, and we discussed that (see my previous post), genetic selection and breeding too.
Your previous post did not address antibiotic resistance, and seemed to ignore the fact that it is evolution in action. This is the first time you are bringing either breeding or "genetic selection," as far as I can see. What exactly is "genetic selection" mean, anyways? How action of surviving bacteria not Natural Selection in action?

In otherwords, please explain to me how this it isn't evolution, and therefore how evolution is not important to medicine?

Cobra1597
2011-Dec-04, 03:36 AM
What parts of the curriculum are they walking out on?

I generally associate "evolution" with species evolution, which has nothing to do with the examples about viruses and bacteria, right?
First off, "species" is a fairly arbitrary delineation made up by people. The quality of an organism does not change whether we call it a new species or not, just as no quality of Pluto changed when we stopped calling it a planet. It went along merrily in its orbit with no change because of our new designation. Thus "speciation" is not a good measure of evolution, and isn't used as one to begin with. One does not have to become a new "species" to have had the action of evolution occur.

Secondly, how would such a "species evolution" not apply to bacteria or viruses? Bacteria especially are most definitely taxonomically described as belonging to species just as organisms from other domains are. E. coli, for example, is of the genus Escherichia and the species E. coli.

DonM435
2011-Dec-04, 04:20 AM
A trend of 10%-20% of students not attending lectures? Why would that have any effect on the staff or exam boards? Lectures are not completely necessary in a degree course. Many of my fellow students seldom attended lectures because they found it quicker and easier to read the book themselves rather than have a physicist read it (sometimes badly) to them. Others couldn't get out of bed early enough.

The student can always study what he or she wants in the library, and if they miss out on some part, then this will show up in the exam. Their problem, not a problem for the exam board. I really do not see why this should be an issue.

That's pretty much how I felt when I was teaching, at least at the college level. If any student can pass the examinations without listening to me, good for him or her. I'd say that it was their lookout, and I'd rather only have the students who wanted to be there in the classroom.

But the administration told me that if certain students didn't attend that they could lose their veteran's (or other) benefits, and the school would lose their cut of same, so ... I was required to take attendance and to flunk anybody who was absent too often. As a result, every class had people forced to attenmd and take up time and space that could have been better used.

Perikles
2011-Dec-04, 09:42 AM
Now, if you have references to show this is wrong, great.I think you are taking my post slighty out of context. I was replying to a post about the original source of the concern, which is:
Professors at University College London have expressed concern over the increasing number of biology students boycotting lectures on Darwinist theory
Whilst some of these students may be medical students, this is not the concern of the original source. The Daily Mail has distorted the issue, as it distorts just about everything, to focus on the medical students. That was my point.

publiusr
2011-Dec-04, 07:46 PM
A lot of this can be laid at the feet of Harun Yahya and his "lavishly illustrated 'Atlas of Creation'.
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/archives/vol16n03.html
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=5962

The sad thing here is--aside from its contents--the book itself is a beauty. There is a lot of money behind this effort--and it bears watching. Better to stick to pouring that money into skyscrapers for Tom Cruise to clamber around...

If only good science books were so well funded and illustrated.

Van Rijn
2011-Dec-05, 08:39 AM
Whilst some of these students may be medical students, this is not the concern of the original source.


How did you determine that wasn't a concern? I don't see any statement there excluding medical students. Also, I googled on this and found this related article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/uk-muslim-students-boycott-lectures-on-evolution/story-e6frgcjx-1226208363347

Quoting:



Jones said he was also aware of trainee doctors on UCL’s medical course, one of the most highly ranked in Britain, who refused to learn about evolution.

Which seems to support the statements in the Daily Mail article.


The Daily Mail has distorted the issue, as it distorts just about everything, to focus on the medical students. That was my point.

You haven't, as far as I can see, demonstrated how the issue has been distorted in the article.

Perikles
2011-Dec-05, 09:01 AM
How did you determine that wasn't a concern? I don't see any statement there excluding medical students. ......You haven't, as far as I can see, demonstrated how the issue has been distorted in the article.Look, I never claimed medical students were of no concern, nor that medical students were not involved. The Australian newspaper in fact only confirms what I claimed. The concern of the academics was students studying biology. This is then made into a headline by the Daily Mail as "Muslim medical students boycotting lectures on evolution... ". This headline is not incorrect, and I agree that a minority of the students are medical students. But the readership would not be interested in biology students, just medical students. That is the distortion, and typical of Daily Mail rhetoric. Note also the addition of 'Muslim' for the rhetorical effect (again, not wrong). 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.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Dec-05, 11:21 AM
I generally associate "evolution" with species evolution, which has nothing to do with the examples about viruses and bacteria, right?
It's the same thing, the only difference is time scale.
Except in the teachings of those trying to push anti-science, who try to make them out to be entirely difference and unrelated.

grapes
2011-Dec-05, 11:36 AM
It's the same thing, the only difference is time scale.
Except in the teachings of those trying to push anti-science, who try to make them out to be entirely difference and unrelated.Same thing except one is relevant to medicine, the other is not. By not differentiating, we can't tell if they're walking out on something that is relevant to medicine, which is the whole subject of this thread. I hate to think I'm going to have to buy that book just to find out if it differentiates. If it doesn't, then they may well be walking out on something that is relevant. Lastly, there may be individuals who are so confused, that they're walking out on everything. Thankfully, they probably won't pass the boards.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Dec-05, 11:54 AM
Same thing except one is relevant to medicine, the other is not. By not differentiating, we can't tell if they're walking out on something that is relevant to medicine, which is the whole subject of this thread. I hate to think I'm going to have to buy that book just to find out if it differentiates. If it doesn't, then they may well be walking out on something that is relevant. Lastly, there may be individuals who are so confused, that they're walking out on everything. Thankfully, they probably won't pass the boards.
Since it was a biology lecture they were walking out of, it was relevant for the lecture. It was the skewed reporting that made it about medicine.
And I'd consider a refusal to accept science on religious or philosophical grounds to be an automatic disqualification from practicing medicine. But from the way society looks at the moment I guess that's a minority view.

grapes
2011-Dec-05, 12:11 PM
And I'd consider a refusal to accept science on religious or philosophical grounds to be an automatic disqualification from practicing medicine. But from the way society looks at the moment I guess that's a minority view.Any science? Including astronomy? :)

HenrikOlsen
2011-Dec-05, 12:32 PM
Yes.;) It's an indication of habits of thought.
ETA yes, I do know all generalizations are false.


BTW, I agree that the different time scales of evolution of species and resistance mean different applicability, but trying to claim they're fundamentally different and refusing to acknowledge one part will result in a skewed comprehension of the others.

BTW, slight aside to a previous subject, tuberculosis antibiotics was actually a bad choice for Trudeau to use since tuberculosis medicine hasn't evolved along with the virus, it causes 2 million deaths per year and the last new major drug against it was released in 1972. A major problem in developing new ones is that the first (and often only, until activity has been shown) mammal model of drugs these days are mice and tuberculosis don't develop the same way in mice as in humans.

Swift
2011-Dec-05, 05:49 PM
Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen
And I'd consider a refusal to accept science on religious or philosophical grounds to be an automatic disqualification from practicing medicine. But from the way society looks at the moment I guess that's a minority view.
Any science? Including astronomy? :)
I'm basically with Henrik here. I can't speak for medical boards or medical schools or society. But for myself, I do not think I would use a physician who did not believe in scientifically accepted ideas because they conflicted with their religious views, particularly if the idea was even remotely related to the practice of medicine, such as evolution (either micro or macro).

grapes
2011-Dec-05, 06:06 PM
I'm basically with Henrik here. I can't speak for medical boards or medical schools or society. But for myself, I do not think I would use a physician who did not believe in scientifically accepted ideas because they conflicted with their religious views, particularly if the idea was even remotely related to the practice of medicine, such as evolution (either micro or macro).That another division. Speciation can occur within micro or macro, so I wouldn't think that distinction would be relevant--but I'm just guessing that speciation is the issue. Do they walk out on lectures on cladistics?

Solfe
2011-Dec-05, 06:28 PM
Silly question - can you walk out of class and expect to return or pass that class?

Where I go to school, they have an attendance policy usually two to five absences reduces your final grade by one letter grade, followed by a further reduction of one letter grade per additional instance. Walking out on the other hand can be worse, it can be a disruption and you can be removed from class entirely on the first instance (depending on how you do it). Warning the teacher/professor in advance of absences or explaining a valid need to leave usually has no consequences for a single instance. Do it a lot and you are "done".

Gillianren
2011-Dec-05, 08:28 PM
I'm basically with Henrik here. I can't speak for medical boards or medical schools or society. But for myself, I do not think I would use a physician who did not believe in scientifically accepted ideas because they conflicted with their religious views, particularly if the idea was even remotely related to the practice of medicine, such as evolution (either micro or macro).

I'm with Henrik in that I think belief in creationism damages your credibility as a scientist no matter what field you're in. Including astronomy. After all, if you're willing to believe that the evidence for evolution isn't, for whatever reason, what mental leaps are you doing in your own field?


Silly question - can you walk out of class and expect to return or pass that class?

Depends on the school, teacher, and class, I would imagine. A lot of colleges vary in their attendance policies, and my alma mater let the policy be set from professor to professor. Since most classes are "interdisciplinary studies" courses with multiple professors, that can mean that the policy a certain professor had in one class won't be the same the next year, when he's teaching with someone else. But even through my community college years, I had teachers who didn't actually take attendance most days. Walking out once class had started? That would seldom be considered an attendance issue.

Cobra1597
2011-Dec-05, 10:28 PM
That another division. Speciation can occur within micro or macro, so I wouldn't think that distinction would be relevant--but I'm just guessing that speciation is the issue. Do they walk out on lectures on cladistics?

There is no such thing as a physical division between macro and micro that in any way impacts the actual physical qualities of an organism. The division between macro and micro is based on the resolving capabilities of human eyesight. There is absolutely no difference between evolution occurring in an organism too small for the human eye to see and an organism large enough for the human eye to see. The physical and biological processes of said organisms are independent of human optics.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-05, 10:35 PM
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
2011-Dec-05, 11:02 PM
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
2011-Dec-05, 11:14 PM
Either way, it has nothing to do with human vision per se.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Dec-06, 01:00 AM
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
2011-Dec-06, 04:03 AM
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
2011-Dec-06, 05:14 AM
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
2011-Dec-06, 05:37 AM
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/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

Van Rijn
2011-Dec-06, 06:06 AM
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/higher-education/uk-muslim-students-boycott-lectures-on-evolution/story-e6frgcjx-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
2011-Dec-06, 07:07 AM
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
2011-Dec-06, 08:46 AM
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
2011-Dec-07, 01:24 AM
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.