Prejudice: macro- & micro-evolution

Fox News’ Charlotte Edwards writes about amateur archaeologist / fossil hunter and medical student Aaron Smith finding 185 million year-old ‘golden snitch’ (iron pyrite) with ancient sea creature inside. The Sun Quidditch ball shaped fossils are just some of the many discoveries that have been made by amateur archaeologist Aaron Smith.

The only thing I’d like to add to that story is that it doesn’t look like this creature has gone through neither macro- nor micro-evolution, but is that which through 185 million years of generations has stayed exactly the same. Hmm… So, I guess that conditions on earth have never changed in 185 million years. I mean, one would expect such a creature to surely turn into a salamander, and then a monkey, and an ape, and a man. Right?

We can say the same for alligators and sharks and all the bugs we’ve found in amber. Right?

And then what about the myriad entirely different birds that we find on tropical islands, wherein the same conditions exist but the birds are absolutely different one from another? I mean…

There has been plenty of conjecture for ideological reasons, but there has been a case of macro-evolution demonstrated.

People have been trying to train chimps to think beyond what a human baby can do at a some months old, with zero success. A wall is confronted, but not a wall. It’s that the entire premise is mistaken.

There is, of course, micro-evolution, that which happens to any species under wildly different conditions. I grew up in the forests of Minnesota and saw up close what our very abundant Poison Ivy is all about. I lived in the forests of Western North Carolina for years at the Hermitage, and noted how very much the same but at the same time how very different the Poison Ivy is here. And the same for all the kinds of varmints and vegetation. If the specialized conditions are taken away, the differences disappear and both reset.

Take pigs as an example. Let’s say that domestic porky-pig is let go into the wild. Within just a few generations over just a few years, the snouts elongate and tusks sprout, turning little porky-pig into a small bulldozer. But domesticate those wild boar and after a number of generations over a few years they will revert to cute porky-pig once again.

Take salamanders as an example, you know, the ones which have become blind over the years in their sunless caves. But they had eyes at one time. Put them back in the sun and, I betcha, the eyes will become unveiled once again. Micro-evolution.

Take mankind spreading out to the various continents. Pigmentation, body-size, etc., are all matters of micro-evolution. Compare Vietnamese and those on the South Pacific Islands. The diets are wildly different. Compare lily white Russians in the frozen North, covered up all the time as they are, and Africans in the South out in the sun. Micro-evolution.

How stupid it is to be prejudiced because of micro-evolution. Actually, micro-evolution proves the rule of no macro-evolution.


Filed under Racism

4 responses to “Prejudice: macro- & micro-evolution

  1. nancyv

    Ha, I was thinking about this just yesterday as my co-worker was listening to a show about historical discoveries – the different races and physical features – how they came to be and then decided to stop thinking and ruminate on ‘Who can know the mind of God?’. And here you and Aussie provide everything I need to know!
    But what’s the difference between MN poison ivy and NC poison ivy – just curious.

    • Father George David Byers

      Terribly MUCH more virulent in MN. Also, big bushes. Much heartier berries. Vines rare.

  2. sanfelipe007

    Yes, I believe mitochondrial DNA was used by scientists to trace all of mankind back to a single pair in Africa. But recently an agenda was unfolded by a group of world scientists that have tried to “reinterpret” these discoveries. For the life of me I cannot find a link to the article. But fret not, the movement did not take the scientific world by storm.

  3. Aussie Maum

    I agree that it’s ridiculous to be prejudiced because of micro-evolution or what is termed micro-evolution. It’s just adaptation as you have shown.

    Focusing on the colour of one’s skin, as if different colours represent different races, is an opening for racism to develop. It’s also silly since all human beings belong to one race – the human race (human family) – descended from one couple, Adam and Eve. However, say that in most settings and one is laughed at and considered a fool.
    Religion, ethnicity and nationality tell more about a person than the colour of their skin (hair, eyes etc) anyway, and is generally less provocative. For example, to say that I am a Catholic of predominantly Irish and English descent born in Australia, tells more about my background, beliefs and likely behaviours than if I am simply described as white.
    There is a blog that I sometimes visit that tries to explain history and make clear that the Catholic Church provides the only solution for the world’s problems. Happily it has led to a number of conversions. However, sometimes among the commenters are “white guys” who are sure that the root of every problem is racial and can only be solved by dominance of one race over another – not good! They have internalised Social Darwinism and are convinced that people with white skin are more highly “evolved” and that this makes the “white race” superior.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.