(May 2, 2018 at 10:43 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 9:33 am)alpha male Wrote: I've read the book. They have pretty good credentials.

You're missing the point, man. And your book is part of the problem. It's taking a small sample size of scientists and using them to "demonstrate" that evolution is up for debate within the scientific community.

Quote:BTW, the book was in response to an evolutionist challenging creationists to come up with a single scientist with a PhD who doesn't accept mainstream thought on evolution. This book has 50 of them, and he turned away a lot more for space considerations.

So one dumbass comes up with a dumbass challenge that is easily toppled fifty times over by creationists with an agenda. The book should have been called That One Guy was Wrong instead of In Six Days. It's almost like a practical example of a strawman.

Quote:The contributors to this book felt secure in their positions. Some scientists who have questioned evolution, or just presented results seemingly at odds with evolution, have had their careers affected. Some poll respondents may be factoring this in as well.

I don't care who "feels" secure in their opinion. I'd like to get the whole story on those who have had their careers affected, because creationists have overblown such claims in the past (like in Ben Stein's movie about design). I'm all for any scientific theory being scrutinized. And if there is a real case of real data being suppressed or genuine research being stifled, that's an issue. Give me a tangible case and we'll discuss it. But don't expect me to just accept what is presented in some random link. Flat earthers have tons of "evidence" that NASA has been misrepresenting the shape of the world. I need independent, objective sources. Otherwise it's just a conspiracy theory, and I don't do those. There actually are problems with bias in certain scientific fields, mostly surrounding publication--not data collection. I actually wrote a research paper on the subject. The problem is there, but (on the whole) insignificant.

My quick response to the poll being inaccurate is that for it to be substantially so would have to mean there is a large problem with corruption in the field of science. That sounds more like a conspiracy theory (see above).

Quote:Where "an increase in the quality of education" means more pro-evolution indoctrination.

No. You. DIDN'T!

Quote:The difference between education and indoctrination is mostly whether you agree with what's being taught.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! This goes against everything people have been working to achieve since we clawed our way out of the bronze ages. There is reality, and then there is what people believe. Ideally, one wants to have his belief's conform to reality as much as possible.

It amazes me how Christians get indoctrinated with ideas, and then when they discover that there are people with contrary ideas, they automatically just assume: "oh those people were indoctrinated to believe something else." Lol! Some of us weren't indoctrinated, and if we were, we broke free from it and began searching for the truth independently.

2,400 years ago Plato argued that there is a difference between truth and opinion. It's a very basic premise with which to begin an earnest investigation into reality, but so many centuries later, people still don't get it.

Quote:If you want to educate people on evolution, start with teaching them that evolution is simply a change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. Why hasn't that been driven home?

Maybe because there's more to the story.

Holy Shit Beta has outdone himself in sounding like a paranoid fringe wack job .

(May 2, 2018 at 10:43 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I don't care who "feels" secure in their opinion. I'd like to get the whole story on those who have had their careers affected,

If you wanted that story, you'd research it.

Quote:

Quote:If you want to educate people on evolution, start with teaching them that evolution is simply a change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. Why hasn't that been driven home?

Maybe because there's more to the story.

Such as?

(May 2, 2018 at 10:33 am)alpha male Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 9:33 am)alpha male Wrote: If you want to educate people on evolution, start with teaching them that evolution is simply a change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. Why hasn't that been driven home?

The chipmunk apparently no greater authority than himself for his position.

(May 2, 2018 at 11:10 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: There is apparently no greater authority than yourself for your position.

So give me the definition of evolution from a qualified authority.

Here are a couple:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

And, of course, those changes in allele frequencies are what bring about the heritable changes in the properties of populations of organisms over time. The 'changes in allele frequency over time' definition is a pretty concise, neat working definition - but some people just refuse to accept that changes in allele frequency can lead to substantial changes, for whatever reason.

Er, yeah, that's what I said.

I know. I never said you were wrong. As to the "why hasn't this been communicated" question, the below excerpt describes what I think pretty clearly. Media popularization of scientific terms/theories is notoriously shitty. That's why we see a 'miracle cure for cancer' story every other month.

"When we try to explain evolution to those who do not know much about it, one of the problems we have is the definition of what counts as evolution. In part, this is because some of the definitions found in the scientific literature, including textbooks and popularizations of evolutionary theory, use technical terms that do not seem to convey to the public that evolution explains the diversity of living forms. In part, it is also because the popular idea of evolution as it is found in dictionaries, science fiction, and philosophical potboilers is a holdover of concepts that have long been abandoned in the biological sciences, if not in theology or in the "science" of popular media."

https://ncse.com/library-resource/defining-evolution-0

(May 2, 2018 at 11:23 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I know.  I never said you were wrong.

Other people implied I was. The point was for them to present something different from what I said.

---

(May 2, 2018 at 11:23 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I know.  I never said you were wrong.  As to the "why hasn't this been communicated" question, the below excerpt describes what I think pretty clearly.  Media popularization of scientific terms/theories is notoriously shitty.  That's why we see a 'miracle cure for cancer' story every other month.

"When we try to explain evolution to those who do not know much about it, one of the problems we have is the definition of what counts as evolution. In part, this is because some of the definitions found in the scientific literature, including textbooks and popularizations of evolutionary theory, use technical terms that do not seem to convey to the public that evolution explains the diversity of living forms. In part, it is also because the popular idea of evolution as it is found in dictionaries, science fiction, and philosophical potboilers is a holdover of concepts that have long been abandoned in the biological sciences, if not in theology or in the "science" of popular media."

https://ncse.com/library-resource/defining-evolution-0

I was going to bring that link in myself eventually.

(May 2, 2018 at 11:24 am)alpha male Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 11:23 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I know.  I never said you were wrong.

Other people implied I was. The point was for them to present something different from what I said.

---

(May 2, 2018 at 11:23 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I know.  I never said you were wrong.  As to the "why hasn't this been communicated" question, the below excerpt describes what I think pretty clearly.  Media popularization of scientific terms/theories is notoriously shitty.  That's why we see a 'miracle cure for cancer' story every other month.

"When we try to explain evolution to those who do not know much about it, one of the problems we have is the definition of what counts as evolution. In part, this is because some of the definitions found in the scientific literature, including textbooks and popularizations of evolutionary theory, use technical terms that do not seem to convey to the public that evolution explains the diversity of living forms. In part, it is also because the popular idea of evolution as it is found in dictionaries, science fiction, and philosophical potboilers is a holdover of concepts that have long been abandoned in the biological sciences, if not in theology or in the "science" of popular media."

https://ncse.com/library-resource/defining-evolution-0

I was going to bring that link in myself eventually.

No. No one implied you were wrong on this occasion. I implied you are full of yourself to cite yourself to justify yourself.