Macro evolution is a myth. Earthquakes are increasing. Fact.

[George]

Parsifal,
Haha! Good job your folks weren't JW's or you might not be here to tell the story!

I've thought that my JW might leave one of our meetings on a few occasions after being refuted and left stumped for an answer but he's very persistant! Usually when this happens he says he'll have to 'go away and study on that one' (which means he'll go and ask one of his elders what to say) and then what usually happens is he turns up the next week with a new accomplice to explain it for him, this weeks accomplice, the (pseudo)scientist was the third new face I've seen since this all started a few weeks back. I get the feeling they're working up through the ranks until eventually I'll have the big boys from the Watchtower round and then I'd better start believing!

[George]

Squid, thanks for the stuff on about gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Doing a bit of reading up on that before next meeting!

[Parsifal]

George, it is not all that bad.  Don't know if you read Mad, but there was this one spoof called: "You know your life is not going very well when..."

One of the memorable cartoons was of a lonely soul sitting there, legs crossed, with a cup of tea, and a JW hastily getting up, putting on his hat, heading for the door, saying: "No I can't stay for another cup of tea, but here's your copy of The Watchtower", implying that if the JWs run to get away from you, your life is pretty useless.

I think your tactic is wrong, you should bore them to death.

[George]

The tactic I actually set out with was to deconvert one!
I originally made quite a bit of headway in this respect with the guy's missus. When I read her the bible passage about the girl whose virginity was in dispute (her parents having to prove their daughter's virginity at the city gates and her being stoned to death if they could not) she agreed it was nothing short of disgusting and gave him a look of 'why do we believe this again?' Needless to say he hasn't brought her along since then!
I kinda regret having started the whole thing now but I've learnt a lot and I wanna see what happens!
I actually quite like the guy as well, hopefully it won't end in tears!!

[Tank]

The tactic I actually set out with was to deconvert one!
I originally made quite a bit of headway in this respect with the guy's missus. When I read her the bible passage about the girl whose virginity was in dispute (her parents having to prove their daughter's virginity at the city gates and her being stoned to death if they could not) she agreed it was nothing short of disgusting and gave him a look of 'why do we believe this again?' Needless to say he hasn't brought her along since then!
I kinda regret having started the whole thing now but I've learnt a lot and I wanna see what happens!
I actually quite like the guy as well, hopefully it won't end in tears!!

I think what you are doing is excellent, whatever the outcome (unless of course they convert you    ). It's giving you and them an experience and insight that one day could be very valuable. At the very least if somebody says 'atheist just won't listen' your example will prove them wrong. Good on ya!

[NothingSacred]

Im less than a lay person where science is concerned but I think I've gotten better at detecting bullshit over the years...They are trying to tell you that several small scale changes that continue on for ages will NEVER amount to large scale change? BEEP BEEP bullshit... doesn't take a Dawkins or Darwin to work through this one. More earthquakes thus god is real? What if in the next century there are fewer quakes?

[Tank]

Im less than a lay person where science is concerned but I think I've gotten better at detecting bullshit over the years...They are trying to tell you that several small scale changes that continue on for ages will NEVER amount to large scale change? BEEP BEEP bullshit... doesn't take a Dawkins or Darwin to work through this one. More earthquakes thus god is real? What if in the next century there are fewer quakes?

You're spot on with the Marcro vs Micro evolution non-debate. And the earthquake stuff would appear to be BS too, relying on 'lack of evidence', I suppose the existance of the Andes, Alps, Himalayas, Atlantic and Pacific oceans count for nothing

[Asmodean]

I suppose the existance of the Andes, Alps, Himalayas, Atlantic and Pacific oceans count for nothing

Those, my heavily armored friend, are a construct of the worldwide conspiracy of scientists to stray them lambs of zombiegod from the straight and narrow bridge to heavenly lunacy  

[Martin TK]

You guys make my ribs hurt from laughing.. I LOVE IT!!!

[Squid]

Squid, thanks for the stuff on about gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Doing a bit of reading up on that before next meeting!

You may find the information in this post useful in your discussions.

[hackenslash]

1) (Context - I'd said that I wasn't a scientist but evolution made sense to me and I would trust the scientific consensus that evolution is both theory and fact) He said that although micro evolution is true, macro evolution is a myth. Scientific consensus had supported evolution 20 years ago but since then new evidence has come to light and this is no longer the case.

Err, no. Case in point:

Macroevolution, when discussed rigorously among those who actually know what it means, is defined as a change in allele frequencies at or above species level. There are irrefutable examples of this having happened, namely in the process of extinction. When a species goes extinct, any unique alleles carried by that species are removed, which constitutes a change in allele frequencies at or above species level. This is macroevolution, however you slice it. I bet you can't even find a creationist who would deny that species have gone extinct, which means that they admit that macroevolution occurs.

In some cases, extinction can also be a speciation event. The clear case of this is in a ring species. Where you have a single species, which is defined as a population throughout which gene transfer can occur (this is the biological species concept, or BSC, and is the most widely accepted rigorous definition, although it can be problematic in some cases, such as where sideways gene transfer is possible, like bacteria), this species can be a string of subspecies (loosely) each of which are interfertile with their immediate neighbours (and often several neghbours beyond, but the ends of which cannot interbreed with each other, this is a ring species. If an event, such as, say, a meteorites strike, wipes out a portion of the middle of the ring species, such that the closest neighbours can no longer interbreed, you have a speciation event, because the nearest neighbours are now separate species, even when the same members of the same subspecies were the same species before the event. This is an extinction that caused a speciation, and therefore a macroevolutionary event.

2) (Context - increaced war, disease, natural disasters). He said that seismologists would confirm there have been more earthquakes in the last century than any other century previous. I said that this may be more to do with increased recording of quakes rather than actually more quakes. He said that this wouldn't come into it as they could use new technology to look back and tell how many quakes there were hundreds of years ago. He said that increased earthquakes were a scientific fact that could not be argued with.

Well, while I suspect that this is guff, it may not be. In reality, plate tectonics is not as completely understood a science as we'd like. I'm certainly not aware of any rigorous means of testing for earthquakes in history, although there are certain instances in which we would be able to tell that an earthquake has happened in a particular instance, such as when fossil beds are uncovered. I know a few geologists, so I will quiz them about this. I would like to see this person provide some rigorous citations, though, because I suspect that this is rectally extracted blind assertion.

Now to read the rest of the thread.

[hackenslash]

Macroevolution has mountains of evidence to support it. That said, why divide evolution in two in the first place?

This requires an answer, I think. When applied properly, micro- and macroevolution are actually very useful terms, because they are active areas of study. Microevolution is the study of changes in allele frequency below species level, so it looks at frequency of alleles within populations of organisms of the same species. This is incredibly useful in such areas a genetic medicine, as drugs (and other treatments) can be geared for carriers of specific versions of genes, increasing the efficacy of treatments.

Macroevolution is the study of changes in allele frequency at or above species level, and deals with areas such as speciation, extinction, etc. They are studying the same thing in reality, but at different levels, and for different reasons.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not quite on this topic, but I have to share this story .... The lady left.

I think the adjective I'm looking for is "pwnage".