Please be more specific about which type of creationist you're speaking of...

You are aware that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution right? And even among scientists there are raging debates over the different theories that make up evolution, like Abiogenesis vs panspermia. Transpermia is something i believe in by the way which is an alternative to an evolutionary theory like Abiogenesis where life evolves from chemicals.

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is the amount of time, and what you are talking about is not an alternative to evolution. It's an alternative to abiogenesis or panspermia. I sway toward panspermia, but the origin of life is still a mystery. Evolution is not about the beginning of life, it's about the diversification of life. Common misconception. The attack on evolution is unjustified, not backed by science, and is simply absurd. That is generally the type of folks we refer to as creationists in this section, I suppose.

Originally posted by Barcs
The only difference between micro and macro evolution is the amount of time,

You're right about that. Macro refers to a large geologic timescale. The reason these terms were termed was because they have different amounts of known facts and experiments done on them. If a scientist is dealing with common ancestors and the Cambrian explosion, it behooves the scientist to realize there aren't many repeatable or observable experiments he can do, like scientists do with micro evolution.

reply to post by addygrace


That's not true. The experiments are exactly the same because there is absolutely no difference in micro and macro, just time. You just admitted it, but then said immediately after that the experiments aren't the same, when they clearly are and both terms refer to the same exact process that has been observed in a lab and in nature, plus much much more.

reply to post by JoshF

You are aware that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution right?

No. There isn't. Biological evolution is biological evolution. There are evolutionary effects that take place on a time scale that humans can see during a lifetime, and effects that humans cannot see in a single lifetime. There is no difference between the two.

And even among scientists there are raging debates over the different theories that make up evolution, like Abiogenesis vs panspermia.

There is scientific debate about everything in science. Abiogenesis is not one of the "theories that make up evolution". Abiogenesis is not evolution, and there is no Theory of Abiogenesis, only a collection of hypotheses that are being explored. Lots of ideas about Abiogenesis are being reviewed, tested, confirmed, rejected, touted, ridiculed, accepted, put in the 'too hard basket', and pondered. That is how science happens, people put up ideas, those ideas are discussed and tested. If they pass muster they are accepted, if they don't they are rejected.

If you are seeing 'raging debates' in science, then what you are seeing is the cutting edge of science, people pushing the boundaries of human knowledge and that is absolutely a good thing.

Transpermia is something i believe in by the way which is an alternative to an evolutionary theory like Abiogenesis where life evolves from chemicals.

Transpermia is not an alternative to evolutionary theory, unless you are extending Transpermia to include the falsification of the geological and fossil record and the entire ecosystem of the planet earth as it exists today. If that is the case, it is actually no different that creationism, requiring a supernatural being to effect it.

If you are limiting your idea of Transpermia to microbes or other even simpler living molecules seeding the earth, then you are talking about a alternative hypothesis for Abiogenesis, which I repeat, for emphasis, is not Evolution. In other words, if primitive living molecules came to earth from somewhere else, then some process is still required to get from there to where we are now. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the theory that describes how that took place.

Furthermore, you are aware that organic compounds are found throughout the universe, right? So whether the organic compounds that came together to form the first living molecules on Earth actually got here from some extra-terrestrial source (that would be transpermia right?) how would you tell the difference between those and organic compounds that were indigenous to earth? In other words, what difference would it make?

I think I can give an answer to that that most Biologists would agree with: it doesn't make any difference at all, current hypotheses understand that organic compounds have formed naturally both off planet and on planet. Further, life could have formed off planet, that is one reason so much effort is being put into trying to find life on Mars. It is unlikely in the extreme that life could have formed off planet and then somehow made it to Earth in a viable form - not impossible, just extremely unlikely.

The simple fact is that if life formed off planet, the conditions for life to form on Earth are much more conducive. Transpermia, while not impossible, is unlikely, and just not required because the conditions on Earth are as good if not better than any non-terrestrial environments. And that all means that it is Occam's Razor time.

Oh please don't make yourself out to be another one of those atheist e-crusader, it is really cliche.

You know nothing about me or my motives. In fact, I am neither an atheist, nor an e-crusader. I do, however, get irritated when people tell palpable falsehoods, and even worse when they are being intellectually dishonest.

Your challenge left it open for someone to make assumptions about what you were driving at, thereby giving you the opportunity to "score points" while rejecting them if they make the assumption you are talking about Intelligent Design or Spontaneous Generation or some such, just as you have tried to do with this charge against me. If you don't believe in Creationism, why would you care if I am an atheist or not? All I am asking for is a bit of intellectual honesty.