Creationism and Ignorance

[FatAndFaithless]

But I did google those definitions. "Change in allele frequency over time" is a pretty good, concise definition for evolution. Of course there's more to it than that one sentence, but it's not like that definition is false or made up by creationists. And it would be good for there to be a widely-publicized, concise, accurate definition of evolution, even if it didn't encompass every detail for every mechanism for every case in every time period. It would sure as shit be better than the disaster of terminology word salad that pop culture and layman's science media has now. From my earlier post even:

"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.

[John V]

Look up evolution by natural selection.

He won't he will just keep demanding we spoon feed him one . Then he will play dumb again .

I already gave one. Anyone who reads up on evolution should have recognized it as valid. For those who don't, FAF quoted a biology textbook as giving the same as a "precise" definition.

I sometimes wonder if you're just stupid, or so partisan that you're blinded to the reality of what's been written in a thread. I suspect it's the latter.

[Anomalocaris]

That is the broadest possible definition, similar to defining thinking as neurological state change. But a narrower definition is more useful.

When definition is used for rhetorical argument rather than to help guide an edifying experience, it is well to tailor the scope of the definition to the actual argument at hand.

[John V]

https://phys.org/news/2005-09-poll-docto...heory.html

A national survey of 1,472 physicians indicates more than half -- 63 percent -- believe the theory of evolution over that of intelligent design.

A third of doctors need some re-education...

[FatAndFaithless]

That is the broadest possible definition, similar to defining thinking as neurological state change. But a narrower definition is more useful.  

When definition is used for rhetorical argument rather than to help guide an edifying experience, it is well to tailor the scope of the definition to the actual argument at hand.

Anom, what definition would you use if someone asked you to define evolution?  Without spending paragraphs outlining every specific, "changes in allele frequency over time" is a pretty darn good starting point.  And changes in allele frequency + time = speciation.  if that were the definition that was popularized, I think we'd be in a hell of a lot better position than half the country thinking evolution means "your granddad was a monkey" or some shit like that. "Changes in allele frequency over time" isn't incorrect, and it's not misleading.

[Amarok]

I already gave one. Anyone who reads up on evolution should have recognized it as valid. For those who don't, FAF quoted a biology textbook as giving the same as a "precise" definition.

Did i say you didn't?And no your definition left out a shit ton of other stuff it was too narrow and it shown to be too narrow . And the text fat quoted went further than your definition so again it's you dumbass .

I sometimes wonder if you're just stupid, or so partisan that you're blinded to the reality of what's been written in a thread. I suspect it's the latter.

Then you would be wrong on both counts . Dumbass . Or are you just projecting ?

[John V]

The differing definitions of evolution cause an equivocation problem. I accept evolution when defined as I did above, and the 50 writers in the book I linked presumably do as well.

[Amarok]

That is the broadest possible definition, similar to defining thinking as neurological state change. But a narrower definition is more useful.  

When definition is used for rhetorical argument rather than to help guide an edifying experience, it is well to tailor the scope of the definition to the actual argument at hand.

Anom, what definition would you use if someone asked you to define evolution?  Without spending paragraphs outlining every specific, "changes in allele frequency over time" is a pretty darn good starting point.  And changes in allele frequency + time = speciation.  if that were the definition that was popularized, I think we'd be in a hell of a lot better position than half the country thinking evolution means "your granddad was a monkey" or some shit like that.  "Changes in allele frequency over time" isn't incorrect, and it's not misleading.

But it's too narrow a term and leaves out much

[FatAndFaithless]

Anom, what definition would you use if someone asked you to define evolution?  Without spending paragraphs outlining every specific, "changes in allele frequency over time" is a pretty darn good starting point.  And changes in allele frequency + time = speciation.  if that were the definition that was popularized, I think we'd be in a hell of a lot better position than half the country thinking evolution means "your granddad was a monkey" or some shit like that.  "Changes in allele frequency over time" isn't incorrect, and it's not misleading.

But it's too narrow a term and leaves out much

So I'll ask you the same question.  If someone asked you to define evolution, what would you say?

And what exactly does it "leave out"? It's easy to throw a link to a 50 pages scientific paper that dives into every specific of the theory (that nobody will read, especially if they don't accept evolution to begin with), but if someone just ask you, Tiz, face to face, to "define evolution", what would you say?

[Amarok]

The differing definitions of evolution cause an equivocation problem. I accept evolution when defined as I did above, and the 50 writers in the book I linked presumably do as well.

Only so you and your creationist flunkies can avoid the grander implications  of a broader definition .And there are not different definitions nice try mudding the waters .