Creationism and Ignorance

[FatAndFaithless]

That's nice dear.

[Mystic]

That's nice dear.

I know, awesome of him to show exactly why he wouldn't create through evolution and in fact, why it's impossible for him to do so.

[Anomalocaris]

Okay...so what definition would you use?  And as I've repeatedly said, that definition isn't supposed to be a detailed explanation of everything in the theory.  It's just a good starting point that isn't inaccurate or plagued by creationist/popular media bullshit.

I would use natural selection of phenotypes driving non-random changes to population genotypes.

[John V]

Yeah, it helps to clarify that it isn't through any action taken by an individual organism which changes his own morphology, but just the advantage to the future generations of the lucky individual with the positive natural mutation whose offspring will inherit the that random change.

How about "Changes in allele frequencies in populations over time, as directed by natural selection."  That's still a pretty concise, neat sentence.

But not accurate. Genetic drift is also a mechanism of change, and has been gaining in importance lately.

[Whateverist]

The bible proves exactly why evolution is impossible.

Have a good day.

I hope that was a deliberate joke.  An emoticon would help.

[FatAndFaithless]

Okay...so what definition would you use?  And as I've repeatedly said, that definition isn't supposed to be a detailed explanation of everything in the theory.  It's just a good starting point that isn't inaccurate or plagued by creationist/popular media bullshit.

I would use natural selection of phenotypes driving non-random changes to population genotypes.

Okay, and I'd use "Non-random changes in allele frequency over time as driven by natural selection."  I think those are pretty close to meaning the same thing.

---

How about "Changes in allele frequencies in populations over time, as directed by natural selection."  That's still a pretty concise, neat sentence.

But not accurate. Genetic drift is also a mechanism of change, and has been gaining in importance lately.

Fair enough, maybe "driven in part by natural selection."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The bible proves exactly why evolution is impossible.

Have a good day.

Nobody needs another sermon from you.

[Mystic]

The bible proves exactly why evolution is impossible.

Have a good day.

I hope that was a deliberate joke.  An emoticon would help.

No joke, Native Americans in fact did so similarly in a similar fashion.  And what they spoke provides a little more details of the creation story and is closer to the truth than most people realize, and is better safeguard of the dignity of Animals and Humans, than Christians succumbing to evolution non-sense.

[Anomalocaris]

The bible proves exactly why evolution is impossible.

Have a good day.

I hope that was a deliberate joke.  An emoticon would help.

Treating him as a joke clarified all his posts.

[Amarok]

Yeah, it helps to clarify that it isn't through any action taken by an individual organism which changes his own morphology, but just the advantage to the future generations of the lucky individual with the positive natural mutation whose offspring will inherit the that random change.

How about "Changes in allele frequencies in populations over time, as directed by natural selection."  That's still a pretty concise, neat sentence.

That results in a shift in taxonomy above species . That way the creationist can't employ his denial tactics of "that's microevolution " We all know the tricks they pull to keep their insistence that things stay in their own "kind bubble"

---

But that's just it FAF the definition your working from is perfect for the creationist . That way they can play games and not have to accept the full implications of what evolution is . They can just cut it off at a point that's ideologically convenient ."oh i'll accept X can change but that does not mean humans are related to non humans etc etc "

Sure, but it doesn't mean they're right.  No matter how detailed an explanation or definition you create (hah), creationists will always just deny it.  That's not the fault of a concise definition that creationists will attack it.  You could link to a 50 page article defining every facet of evolution and they'd still just say "nah!"

I see your point