Creationism and Ignorance

[Whateverist]

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.

Not sure what you're trying to get at by bringing that up.  Is it simply the fact that not every mutation is inherited by the next generation?  If so, I don't believe that is any claim of evolution theory.

[FatAndFaithless]

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 changes in the genome (alleles) don't necessarily lead to changes in taxonomy - eg, melanistic jaguars are still jaguars and not a new species of "black panther".  As long as it's clear that speciation isn't a goal or anything (since creationists love to imbue intention on naturalistic processes), I think that'd fit in.

"Non-random changes in allele frequencies in populations over time, directed by natural selection and/other factors that may lead to speciation/taxonomy changes." Seems pretty neat.  Emphasizes non-randomness, changes in the genome, and notes natural selection as an important driver, and that speciation MAY occur.

[John V]

@Tiz: shouldn't science give the most accurate definitions, without concern for how creationists might spin them?

It's odd that science in one breath says creationism isn't a player, but in the next is afraid of what they might do next.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Mutations happen in individuals. The beneficial ones spread through the generations.

[Whateverist]

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.

Like xtians and muslims, they were telling a story.  Anthropomorphized animals are one way.  Anthropomorphized gods is another.

[John V]

"Non-random changes in allele frequencies in populations over time, directed by natural selection and/other factors that may lead to speciation/taxonomy changes." Seems pretty neat.  Emphasizes non-randomness, changes in the genome, and notes natural selection as an important driver, and that speciation MAY occur.

Drift is random.

[FatAndFaithless]

@Tiz: shouldn't science give the most accurate definitions, without concern for how creationists might spin them?

It's odd that science in one breath says creationism isn't a player, but in the next is afraid of what they might do next.

Not really.  We're just thinking of ways to make evolution more understandable to the public - and simple, concise, and accurate definitions are the best for that.

[Whateverist]

@Tiz: shouldn't science give the most accurate definitions, without concern for how creationists might spin them?

It's odd that science in one breath says creationism isn't a player, but in the next is afraid of what they might do next.

More accurate to say that the ways that people with an agenda driven counter theory persistently misinterpret evolution help you identify aspects of a theory that may not be specific or clear enough.

[Amarok]

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 changes in the genome (alleles) don't necessarily lead to changes in taxonomy - eg, melanistic jaguars are still jaguars and not a new species of "black panther".  As long as it's clear that speciation isn't a goal or anything (since creationists love to imbue intention on naturalistic processes), I think that'd fit in.

"Non-random changes in allele frequencies in populations over time, directed by natural selection and/other factors that may lead to speciation/taxonomy changes." Seems pretty neat.  Emphasizes non-randomness, changes in the genome, and notes natural selection as an important driver, and that speciation MAY occur.

Again see your point 

And yes non random is really important as how many creationists have tried the whole "evolution is just random chance " 'Or that whole tornado in a junk yard nonsense .

[Mystic]

Evolution was more plausible design argument wise in the past so why didn't most societies believe in it? Because philosophically it's impossible, but, now it's not even plausible knowing the confinements they have to work with design wise, I know it's impossible scientifically design wise aside from why it's impossible philosophically. The Bible proves why it's philosophically impossible. While now with science, we can even know it being design wise impossible.