why is it people find it harder to accept speciation

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-09-01 03:55am

Most Creationist can accept anagenesis, or as they call it "micro-evolution".

But for some reason speciation seems harder to swallow. Today I had a debate with a colleague who said such an experiment to test for speciation would be impossible because it would take "millions of years".

I proceeded to list examples and describe how such an experiment should take place - ie separate a species into 2 different environments, breed them and see if they interbreed after several generations.

He someone got the impression that this was a "restrospective" study even though the experiment I was describing is clearly anything but. I even mentioned that such experiments have been done and shown to be true.

But he just couldn't get his head around it, and felt I must have read it wrong. They can accept "your word" on anagenesis (although they will deny its evolution, and put it down to natural selection even though natural selection is one of the methods of evolution), but they won't accept your word on speciation, even when you can given time quote examples. Why is that.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2005-09-01 04:04am

It's simple enough, I think. One of the driving forces for creationism has always been the fear/hatred of the idea that we are related to other animals. They tolerate "microevolution" because that does not violate the wall they want to put between us and the apes. If they admit that evolution causes speciation, then they have to admit we really are just upgraded apes.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-09-01 04:08am

Because.
Their.
Beliefs.
Can.
Not.
Be.
Wrong.

They are so mentally dependant on their religious beliefs, and so insecure with individual thought, that admitting anything they've been told is incorrect would shatter the entire belief structure for them. They can't handle that, so they just don't let their brain process it.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-09-01 04:10am

what do they think about the domestication of animals. Especially the breeding of dogs during the centuries

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-09-01 04:19am

wautd wrote:what do they think about the domestication of animals. Especially the breeding of dogs during the centuries

I will hazard a guess that they will put it down to natural selection or micro-evolution because every one knows its not evolution unless one species changes to another.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-09-01 04:27am

mr friendly guy wrote:
wautd wrote:what do they think about the domestication of animals. Especially the breeding of dogs during the centuries
I will hazard a guess that they will put it down to natural selection or micro-evolution because every one knows its not evolution unless one species changes to another.

Rather, they'll say "That's a dog into another dog- where's the dogs turning into cows?"

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-09-01 07:30am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
mr friendly guy wrote:
wautd wrote:what do they think about the domestication of animals. Especially the breeding of dogs during the centuries
I will hazard a guess that they will put it down to natural selection or micro-evolution because every one knows its not evolution unless one species changes to another.
Rather, they'll say "That's a dog into another dog- where's the dogs turning into cows?"

Well, thats another point. Creationists think that evolution happens overnight. They can't seem to grasp that evolution isnt that black or white but rather a process of natural selection during many generations

Post by **NecronLord** » 2005-09-01 08:36am

I wonder what the reaction of the 'no new information from mutation' types would be to the fact that in this country, over the past few decades, the starling has mutated to have a new characteristic (a longer beak) for urban life (getting stuff in the pavements)...

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-09-01 08:54am

or the elephant story

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2005-09-01 09:01am

wautd wrote:Well, thats another point. Creationists think that evolution happens overnight. They can't seem to grasp that evolution isnt that black or white but rather a process of natural selection during many generations

To which I like to retourt: "You think that Evolution works like on Pokemon?!"

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-09-01 09:58am

Majin Gojira wrote:
wautd wrote:Well, thats another point. Creationists think that evolution happens overnight. They can't seem to grasp that evolution isnt that black or white but rather a process of natural selection during many generations
To which I like to retourt: "You think that Evolution works like on Pokemon?!"

nice analogy. What do they reply after that?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-09-01 09:58am

Creationists think speciation doesn't mean genetic change beyond fertile reproduction, they think it means "emergence of a new kind," or even worse, the conversion of one kind to another, like cats into dogs, hedgehogs into pinecones, that sort of thing. They want to see large scale taxanomical change, not smaller scale natural gradual variation.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2005-09-01 02:02pm

It seems that some creationists' definition of micro-evolution is "evolution by god". I've heard many creationist claims recently that "no-one questions micro-evolution", and I usually ask them what their definition of micro-evolution is (they can never give a straight answer, for some reason, though). But one time, I asked why a person couldn't believe in theistic evolution instead of the even more ridiculous creation-10000-years-ago crap. He didn't know what theistic evolution was, so I explained it, to which he replied: "Ah, micro-evolution in other words." That was what he thought the micro-evolution, that "everyone believes in", was. I have no idea where he got it from, but he seems to share that view with quite a few others.

wautd wrote:
Majin Gojira wrote:To which I like to retourt: "You think that Evolution works like on Pokemon?!"
nice analogy. What do they reply after that?

I've found that they generally do not. I take that as an "Oh...".

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2005-09-01 03:50pm

NecronLord wrote:I wonder what the reaction of the 'no new information from mutation' types would be to the fact that in this country, over the past few decades, the starling has mutated to have a new characteristic (a longer beak) for urban life (getting stuff in the pavements)...

Ah, but they already had a beak... See, no new information!

Seriously, ask them to define "new information". They won't be able to actually answer the question.