Slashdot Mirror
Avoiding the Word "Evolution"
jakosc tips us to a disturbing article in PloS Biology on the avoidance of the word "Evolution" in scientific papers and grants. From the paper: "In spite of the importance of antimicrobial resistance, we show that the actual word 'evolution' is rarely used in the papers describing this research. Instead, antimicrobial resistance is said to 'emerge,' 'arise,' or 'spread' rather than 'evolve.' Moreover, we show that the failure to use the word 'evolution' by the scientific community may have a direct impact on the public perception of the importance of evolutionary biology in our everyday lives... It has been repeatedly rumored (and reiterated by one of the reviewers of this article) that both the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have in the past actively discouraged the use of the word 'evolution' in titles or abstracts of proposals so as to avoid controversy."
This is what happens when you pander to religious fruit loops - it started with the 'In God We Trust' rebrand of the US (in particular, on money) which was the thin end of the wedge and now we have a situation whereby scientists cannot even discuss things properly.
All the major organised religions seem to want is lots of uneducated children who think they are going to go to 'heaven' when they die.
Moreover, we show that the failure to use the word 'evolution' by the scientific community may have a direct impact on the public perception of the importance of evolutionary biology in our everyday lives
The role of science is not to manage public perception. It's to find out how things work. Unfortunately, receipt of grant money is often tied to public perception (positive, or negative).
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
When I get in an argument with my creationist friends, no one disputes what they call 'micro evolution'. The idea that single cells can mutate to become resistant to bacteria, and those are the only ones that survive. Where people have trouble is with something they call 'macro evolution', that these mutations can over time create entirely new species, organs, and reproductive behavior (sexual vs asexual). I believe it because I think people don't understand exactly how many years we are considering here in the long haul. If the scientific community is not calling 'evolution' what most people agree actually takes place, how can they expect to be taken seriously on more controversial aspects of science?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Adapt. Kinda like how the borg say it.
Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
Are we still in the middle ages? Can I say something about the Sun being on the center of the solar system without being totured till I accept that the Earth is the center of the whole universe? This is so sad...
God is an acronym: Guns, oil, and drugs.
Gravity is a theory, as well. Both are known facts.
SHE does throw dice.
Why is this unfortunate? Evolution is a theory.
Gravity is a theory. Are you saying physicists discussing rocks falling to the floor should avoid mentioning it?
It happens that science is the process of systematically improving theories. You're telling swimmers to avoid water.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Could this possibly have something to do with the fact that the latter terms are used when they are more scientifically accurate?
If you're talking about antimicrobial resistance spreading, then it would be absolutely wrong to say that it was evolving: the bacteria has already evolved and the spread is just the increasing domination of that new line. If they have lumped all those words together than that alone could account for their conclusion by itself, although I would also argue that the other harms have certain preferable contexts for description.
The reserachers did not bother to do any actual pyschological research in their psychological study: they only looked at frequency distributions of the terminology. Apparently this is enough to infer the motivations of the medical patois. I don't suppose it's even remotely possible that the simple fact that evolutionary biologists study evolution could explain the increased frequency of 'evolve' in their personal vernacular? Perhaps if medical scientists spent all of their time researching, reading about, and writing about evolution, the word "evolve" might be as much integrated into their writing.
Regardless, it is absurd to suggest that incipient trends in word usage should in any way be a concern of either medical or evolutionary scientists. I might expect some outcry if people were being coerced (perhaps that is why there was no psychological investigation in this--not enough drama) but if you are going to throw a fit because a certain word isn't used as often as synonymns which say the same things but aren't as directly referential to your pet issue, I would say you are as much a culprit in politicizing science as any creationist school board.
Rhetoric == politics. Research results are not changed by the linguistics of the writeups.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
This same issue came up on a recent episode of NPR's Science Friday (look towards the right side of the page for an mp3 download link). Essentially, biologists were being encouraged by well-meaning people at the government agencies who sponsor them to avoid the word "evolution" so that their research remains uncontroversial and doesn't run afoul of any anti-science policy makers.
This latest article raises a good point, though. By trying to cloak discussion of evolution in other terms, anyone with a grasp of basic evolutionary biology is able to understand what is meant and how the process of natural selection applies to the problem at hand. Politicians and non-scientific observers not familiar with biology, however, don't see that evolution is explicitly referenced and so they don't raise a ruckus over it.
The problem is that this can help feed the general lack of understanding about evolution that creationists exploit. On the one hand, because most schools don't teach a rigorous curriculum on evolutionary biology, creationists can argue pseudo-scientific fallacies (e.g. that the second law of thermodynamics rules out evolution of increasingly complex species. Incidentally, this is false because the second law only applies to closed systems, and Earth's ecosystem continuously receives new energy from the Sun's light and heat). Additionally, because the fact that natural selection, as the basic organizing principle which has guided research in biology for over a century, isn't emphasized in new research reports that come out, many people don't realize that the huge advances we've made in our understanding of life on Earth over the past century, and the great medical breakthroughs that have emerged, nay, evolved from that understanding would not have been possible if we didn't understand evolution. Indeed, many things that we know to be true about biology simply couldn't be true if evolution weren't at work. That's not to say that it's a perfect theory, but like many good scientific theories it is revised and its precision is sharpened as new evidence becomes available (for example, we now know about cycles of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record, and about patterns in human and other animal genomes, which Darwin didn't know about), in the same way that Einstein's relativity built on and refined Newton's laws of motion.
As loathe as many scientists are to do anything with public relations, I think that we have to do a better job of emphasizing the basic scientific theories behind today's research. So I encourage researchers out there to not be scared of using the word evolution, as it will hopefully contribute to people understanding that it is pervasively important to biology.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
I've notified the proper authorities about your question. The Spanish Inquisition will be over shortly to discuse this matter with you. Feel free to inform them of your favorite methode of torture and any allergic reactions to leather whips or red-hot metal you might have.
"In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) There is very strong evidence for evolution between species. As good as the evidence for gravity.
SHE does throw dice.
Yes, and according to similar polls, 34% believe in ghosts, 34% believe in UFOs, 29% believes in astrology, 25% believe in reincarnation and 24% believes in witches. With other words: a sizeable portion of the population will just believe whatever they come across without much, if any, criticism.
see a Text Widget
Actually we are a Republic not a Democracy. Also, the separation of Church and State and other laws are to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
I'll stand on a leg and not assume you are wanting to get modded +3 funny or +1000 sarcastic and your answer is serious.
First at all you founding father were mostly deist, with some being atheist. So if you place any value in what they produced (constitution and all) or their idea, you should be aware of that little fact.
Furthermore you are NOT living in a democracy but in a republic.
Next, you know where this lead this "we live in a democraty, so the majority decide" ? Aside this litle fact about freedom of speech, Well this lead to stuff like persecution of minority. Do you even remmember why the USA had this "freedom of religion" in the first place ? Religious persecution in Europe anyone? And yes non-religion is one form of belief (or rather non-belief in anything). Suppress the freedom of it, then next the cathos will ask the protestant to be muted, the calvinist will ask the last day adventist to be gagged, and the mormon will ask all other to shut up. And in the end nobody open his big mouth because there is always a branch of christianty which is pissed of at another.
I could add more, like the "in god we trust" coming from the darkest era of Mccartysm, but hey, that is not my country so fuck it up as much as you wish, as long as you keep a sane foreign policy of "hand off"....
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction." -- Judith Hayese
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Evolution is a theory. In science, it is better to focus on the known facts (as it seems is beginning to happen).
On the contrary. Science is about researching the unknown. This is why we scientists have theories - we are trying to learn the truth, acknowledging that we don't know it all and probably never will. The only things that are 'known facts' are observations, like last time I let go of a stone it fell down, not up. Nobody knows that it will do the same next time, strictly speaking, but we have a very well researched theory that says it will. Theories are the basis for everything around you: the computer you use was developed using such a theory as quantum mechanics, which is far more speculative than evolution. After all, the theory of evolution is based on fossils you can see with your bare eyes, whereas quantum mechanics deals with things we can't see. It is quite possible - likely even - that our idea about what fundamental particles are like is only a poor approximation to reality.
So if you can accept quantum theory well enough to use computers and other modern electronics, why not evolution? As for facts - we can see that evolution has happened; the fossils are there, and just like a line of footprints on a beach tells you that somebody has walked there recently, the fossils tell you that life has evolved. There is no reasonable doubt about that, and 'evolution theory' is not about that. It is about how it happened.
Electricity would have been discovered by the Greeks (Greek). The relationship between static electricity and lightning was theorised and tested by Benjamin Franklin (American). Most of the work in understanding electricity was done by the likes of Volta (Italian), Ampere (French), Ohm (German), Faraday (English) and so on. Most of the work in making electricity useful was done later by people from all over the planet.
Same with lots of other stuff. Much of the basics of how computers work, for example, were done by the likes of Babbage, Turing and a load of other British guys. The software has been developed by people from all over the place, as have the hardware, and manufacturing technologies required to build modern computers.
I'll give you Edison though. And Bell Labs.
However, none of those are products of religious fanaticism. Far from it in fact. They came later, took over the place, and started turning it into a fascist theocracy.
To assume that the science of evolution is only based on Darwin is like assuming that physics is only based on Newton.
Like Newton, Darwin has been improved upon by his successors.
That is one of the differences between scientists and prophets.
As far as I know, things don't usually evolve right in front of our eyes. Sometimes, the strains that already existed (and which took millons of years to evolve) become dominant for whatever reason. I assume that's where you use "emerge".
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Actually the egyptians had electricity - they used it for electro plating gold onto stone or wood - quite an advanced process really - it does make you wonder what else they were capable of.
(The evidence of this is from hyroglyphs found picturing the process if you want to try and verify it)
A lot of what was known in science 2000+ years ago has been lost only to be rediscovered far more recently, through war, genocide, various cultural dark ages in different regions but 1 person can be given quite a large part of the blame - that rather famous (and egotistical) arsonist, Alexander the Great
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
I don't mean crusade/jihad or anything that bad, just that science vs religion won't ever work.
BUT - if we somehow manage to get an islamic movement to try to ban teaching the ideas of evolution as being against the teachings of the prophet Mohammed and thus the word of Allah, then I'm pretty sure we'd see these religious wack jobs get off their pedistals mighty quick.
Can't try to promote something that those "awful muslims" promote, can we?
In fact - next time friends, relatives or people you meet bring up the idea of not teaching evolution in schools, just add in "oh, you mean like the Taleban? They didn't want schools teaching evolution either."
Playing the "terrorism" card for a GOOD cause for once!
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
On the other hand, the religious nutters do have a point (if completely unwittingly), since it modern astrophysics contradicts the bible version of creation just has much as modern biology does!
"Republic" and "Democracy" are not mutually exclusive.
How the hell do you electroplate a non-conducting surface?
Being a republic is irrelevant to the question if the US is a democracy or not. Many republics are very democratic, others are not. Many monarchies are also democracies. Few are not.
How the hell do you electroplate a non-conducting surface?
I guess the GP wasn't kidding when he said: "quite an advanced process really".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You would be right, except that's precisely what selection takes care of. Yes, most mutations are NOT beneficial, but this does not matter because the non-beneficial mutations die off quickly, and the rare beneficial ones survive to spread expontentially.
Imagine a species has 100 million members, and lets say it is a large-sized species which experiences a generation turnover every 20 years or so. Lets say there is a low mutation rate of perhaps 1% of offspring having some mutation. Let us also say that 99% of mutations are harmful, or perhaps even fatal, and a mere 1% are beneficial. Now we do the math:
If 1% of the population experiences a mutation, that means 1 million will experience a mutation per generation. If 99% of these are harmful, that means 990,000 will die or fail to procreate, or 0.99% of the total population. If 1% of the mutations are beneficial, that means 10,000 will have some superior trait.
At the end of this cycle, there are still around 100 million members, but 10,000 of them, or 0.01%, have a beneficial mutation. Now by definition of a "beneficial" mutation, from an evolutionary perspective, this means that those 10,000 are more likely to survive and procreate than the other 100 million or so.
Lets say each beneficial mutation is only beneficial by a very tiny amount, such that a pair of members without the mutation can have an average of 1.95 children survive to reproduce, while pairs with the mutation can have an average of 2.05 children survive to reproduce. In this case, within 200 generations, or 4,000 years, the members of the species which have received at least one beneficial mutation from the first generation of mutations will outnumber the unmutated members of the species by 2:1.
Feel free to tweak the numbers however you see fit, and you will see that it will still work out, and the only thing you will change by tweaking numbers is how long it takes. Evolution does not require the balance of the numbers to be in its favor, because the process of mutation and selection is intrinsically in favor of improvement, even when the beneficial changes are extremely rare.
You know, science has fucked enough of this stuff up.
We used to know that the earth was flat, and the universe revolved around it. Then scientists with their "theories" came along and screwed everything up. If only they had focused on the "known facts" at the time, instead of messing around with these scientific theories, we wouldn't be in this mess.
There should be a new law. No-one is allowed to discuss evolution, in any way, ever, until they have the correct, scientific definition of the word "theory" beaten into them.
Yes, and according to similar polls, 34% believe in ghosts, 34% believe in UFOs, 29% believes in astrology, 25% believe in reincarnation and 24% believes in witches. With other words: a sizeable portion of the population will just believe whatever they come across without much, if any, criticism.
This is allowed... but fortunatly seperation of church and state keeps those pesky witches, ghosts, flying saucers, astrologers, and reincarnations of Julius Caesar out of our schools and goverment buildings. It may have been to keep the goverment out of their way, which I'm sure they appricate.
Astrology though was always a sore point with me in highschool. Study of Greek/Roman mythology was mandatory but astrology was banned. I guess they were afraid if they let in astrology, they'd have to let in the witches, ghosts, aliens from another planet, and reincarnations of Julius Caesar.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I highly recommend Carl Sagan's book Demon haunted world. It should be compulsory as an intoductory text to high school science and the misunderstood skill of "skepticisim" (ie: critical thinking), putting a "just philosophy" sticker on the front of something that "just works" would be a small price to pay.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The fact that the USA has by far the largest military on earth isn't necessarily something to be proud of.
You do realise that Darwin lived 150 years ago, do you? A lot has happened since then. A lot of predictions by the theory of evolution have been proven to be true. The mechanism that encodes the inherited traits that Darwin speculated about (DNA) had been discovered. Predictions that weren't true, have lead to refinements of the theory that made more accurate predictions. Many "missing links" aren't missing anymore. In Darwin's time there was plenty of room for doubt, but now, 150 years later, there simply isn't anymore. It's as scientific and well-supported as relativity and quantum mechanics.
The resistance does emerge or arise.
It is the microbe population that evolves. No, it does not.
It changes.
It becomes more resistant to some antibiotic(s).
But it does not "evolve". It may not become better; as a matter of fact, it may become worse. (An example are the Ebola-like killing viruses: if they were less fatal, they would be more effective -- because they would give more time for the carriers to spread them.)
Now, there are two problems here:
1. Religion guys loathe the "evolution" word because it reminds them of Darwin.
2. Real, hardcore, scientific guys will dislike the word because it implies that every changed population is somewhat better than the previous (unchanged) generations, which is absolutely not true.
The writer of TFA (no, I'm not new here, but yes, I've RTFA) is worried about problem #1, but (s)he is forgetting about problem #2: "evolve", "fitness", and even "adapt" are not real relevant terms, at least not all the time: they are used to describe (maybe) a final result (that the bacterial culture is, after all, evolved-more_fit-adapted WRT the specific in casu antimicrobial agent(s)) but not the process (survival rates + reproductive advantage)
my R$ 0,02 -- HTH
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Funny how electricity was discovered by Ben Franklin while he was British and proud of his Englishness and his English heratige (rumour has it he was a spy too). Thus its quite easy to see that without good old England none of that and none of you would have come into being.
Evolution is a fact over hear though. I guess we managed to remove the yoke of religion long before you guys managed to build a civilisation (ooops sorry extend our civilisation) into what it is now.
ibbo
Linux user #349545 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQBAzWjX+MZAIjBWXGURAmflAKCntuBbuK
The core problem of the evolution avoidance issue is that they are disregarding their own science in the face of a few very loud people. Science is based on the fact that what we have is the "best answer" at the time and a better one can come along and displace it. There is nothing wrong with believing and talking about evolution as long as it's the best answer out there. But to give in to the extremely vocal opposition who has nothing in the way of evidence to support their side is lunacy.
Informing people about the scams, shams, and bunk that assault them on a daily basis. http://www.jeremyduffy.com
Parent means 'Rights based Republic' not 'Republic as in not Monarchy'. In some sense on paper England is also a rights based republic (essentially since the Magna Carta). Of course being one on paper and being one in practice are entirely different. For rights based republics which include the democratic process part of being a rights based republic is the recognition of both the idea that the governing class has to have the consent of the people, and reflect the will of the people. These are rights the people retain, but they do not supercede most other rights. For example free speach is in some sense more important than the will of the people in traditional American culture.
Hence the distinction. Democracy is not really an important concept in Ye Olde American culture (compared with free speech or consent of the people). It is more a means to an end. It is only recently that democratic feaver has gripped the nation.
An important concept in evolutionary biology is natural selection. Natural selection does not always imply that the correct choice for survival has been made (evidence: all of the species that have become extinct), but rather that some selection has been made that the life form perceives to be beneficial. What you are describing is part of evolution. It may only be a VERY SMALL increment in evolution, but evolution it remains.
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
You're kidding about the astrology thing, right? You do realize that it's just as much bunk as the other stuff you've mentioned, right?? Why should it be taught in schools, exactly?
I realize the populace here at Slashdot is 99% atheist
I'm Pastafarian you insensitive clod!
that's only if you believe in Islam. That's why they still ride camels over there.
Someone needs a quick history lesson. Islamic faith is not at all against education - in fact at one point if you wanted to be on the cutting edge in some fields (mathematics, medicine) you had to study in Persia. The bit about keeping people in the 9th century has to do with politics and power, rather than religion.
Religion is what got the United States on its feet
Members of this American religion will be glad to hear that. I thought it was a LACK of state religion and religious persecution that encouraged the colonization of the US.
religion provides morals and helps to keep the people more in line.
You are suggesting that atheists are "immoral" and out of line. Stop right there, because it's incorrect. I'm an atheist and an extremely moral person. I don't break the law (except for the odd speeding ticket). My work as a physician regularly puts me in a position of having great power over others (because of sedatives during a procedure, due to psychological problems in a patient, or simply the trust in the physician-patient relationship) and yet I've never abused that power. An immoral person would. In fact, if you look at history, I could argue that a great deal of sexual abuse has been commited by religious people...
If man were naturally good, there'd be no need for religion
You seem to have bought into that argument. Too bad you can't see that religion is only another form of politics. Do what I say and get a "reward". Do something I don't approve of, and you get a "punishment". This is beautiful since no one can deny the existence of these rewards and punishments (and if they try, they get ridiculed and asked to "prove" that it's NOT true), and they don't cost a thing.
Not only that, if someone dares to contradict my "teachings", I can bring enormous social pressure to bear. I can even have that person killed with the APPROVAL of the masses. Religion is GREAT! There's NO downside for a religious leader - except perhaps having to pretend to practice what you preach once in a while.
I agree that religion supports law since it's a form of mind control. However a society with strict adherence to the law and completely lacking in freedom discourages the acquisition of knowledge - as you yourself pointed out when you incorrectly attributed this a generalized islamic discouragement of education.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Hey. Not to be picky, but I'm pretty certain that the people who wrote and signed the starting legal documents for this country were either deists (of the 'divine watchmaker' sort), agnostics or atheists. At least, that's what you can glean from their writings.
Meanwhile, you have to understand that about 90% of the scientific community for which that technology is attributed are also of the deist/agnost/atheist group.
http://www.nwcreation.net/atheism.html
So yeah. I wouldn't be attributing the good stuff in this country to 'ignorant' 'religious zealots', unless of course, you _like_ fooling yourself.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Here are some facts, you should try using them when you post, It makes you sound more intelligent. The only category the US leads in is budget. ( I'm ignoring the Navy figures, they appear to be including decommissioned ships in their counts, I do not consider a floating museum to be of short term strategic military value.)
Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb, Ben Franklin didn't discover electricity ... and computers were invented by and englishman and the first working one built by a german., and if you look around you'll find that Emile Berliner invented the record - the gramophone (as opposed to wax cylinders - phonographs).
I'm curious where your moral philosophy came from. Who taught you what right and wrong was?
There is no "right" and "wrong". There's only my behaviour, and the consequences of my decisions. An example: I could rape a sedated patient - there's nothing to stop me. However if I did that I would a) be breaking my hippocratic oath and not be the physician I'd like to think that I am b) probably get caught, go to jail, lose the respect of my children, my license to practice, etc c) have to live with guilt after seeing the impact of my action on that person's life. On the whole, it just ain't worth it. "Right and Wrong" doesn't come into it, see?
It's just a rational form of selfishness. One would argue that the selfish person goes for the quick reward/advantage/gain. Not true. The SMART person goes for the long term reward. In this game, the reward is self preservation.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
There's an excellent documentary on the evolution vs. intelligent design wars called "Flock of Dodos" that covers this very issue -- there's actually a scene with a bunch of leading evolutionary scientists sitting around a poker table, lamenting that they have to avoid using the word "evolution" in their NSF grant proposals if they want to keep their grants. If you haven't seen it, and you're interested in this issue, you should definitely track down a screening in your area.
(Full disclosure: I know the guy who made the movie and am a big fan of his work teaching communications skills to scientists. If you want a second opinion on the movie, here's a New York Times article about it.)
Read my blog.
As usual, it's all about how much we the minority are putting the christian majority down. Non-religious people never have to take crap from overly religious fundamentalists; they give our opinions weight, and treat us with respect. They don't try to actively undermine the teaching of scientific thought, while at the same time accusing us of trying to kill religion. They don't kill people who don't believe what they believe.
Oh wait, my bad, they do. What was your point again?
I'm not an atheist, though I am agnostic. I don't give a damn about your religion...I can't come up with a word for how little I care. You can do whatever you like, you can believe whatever you like. I don't care if you choose to believe in god, I don't care what you do on Sundays.
But when you start trying to force your beliefs down my throat, you damn betcha I'm going to get pissed, and try to defend what I believe.
And then you'll start crying about how the bad atheist is trying to kill christmas, or saying you're descended from monkeys, or saying the earth isn't the center of the solar system, and then I'll have angry irrational protesters bussed into my neightborhood by some goddamn fundie organization that specializes in bussing whackjob fundies from place to place to protest people who have the audacity to believe in scientific truth and a material universe
And it'll all be because the scary atheist minority is trying to kill religion.
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Matthew 7:5
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
In macroevolution, an organism gains new features, such as wings. In microevolution an organism gets stronger arms.
What does the baby Jesus command you to call it when an organism gets stronger arms with a longer flap of skin on them that permits gradually improved gliding performance from trees? Is it "microevolution" until the mouse accidentally flaps his front legs and looks kind of like a bat, at which point it would be "macroevolution" and smote down as blasphemous by a jealous genocidal war-god?
The whole "micro/macro" evolution bullshit is a rear-guard action by the hate-crazed godtards. But it's crap. There is no distinction; just small gradual steps, and the ones that increase the number of healthy offspring tending to be preserved.
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
How the hell do you electroplate a non-conducting surface?
;-)
With difficulty.
Actually, some years ago, I saw a demo by a fellow who was pretty good at such tricks. He had some finished pieces that were gold-plated wood and ceramic. He explained that the material he used were actually (slightly) porous, and had been saturated with salt water. The result still didn't conduct electricity very well, and the plating process was slow. But with gold, you only want a layer that's a few atoms thick. His demo basically consisted in wiring up his pieces of wood and ceramic, which had been coated with wax over most of their surface, and lowering them into his plating solution. You could walk away and come back in half an hour or so, and see that there was already a visible gold layer on the uncoated spots.
It is a lot faster if the core material conducts well. I think his demo was pretty much a display of virtuosity. Gold paint would be a lot faster. And for something like a dome of a building, gold leaf would probably be more practical.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
" 'Evolution' is a fine word for the masses, but when someone learned is supposed to be specific, a vague word isn't the best choice."
Evolution as used in Biology is hereditable change of gene frequencies through time (from one generation to the next). Consequently, it is technically the scientifically correct term to use when referring to microbial resistance or any other form of genetic change being of compared across generations. It has a precise meaning in Biology, and there is really nothing "vague" about it. Rather, it is your understanding that is vague.
Your assertion that is a "general term" is factually inaccurate when the term is used in a scientific context, although I will certainly admit and as the article points out, it has other more "general meanings". Unfortunately, the general level of scientific understanding of evolutionary theory and use of the term is woefully deficient, even among broad swaths of the scientific community that is in a position to know better. Among the general public, at least the American public, it is practically non-existent. One could only use other scientific terms to describe the change of microbial resistance through time, if one means to imply that it changes through some mechanism other than by evolution (by means of natural selection). It is a well known scientific fact that microbial resistance is genetically based, and consequently, the contemporary consesus view is that changes in microbial resistance should be viewed as evolving in the correct, technical sense of the term.
I fully agree with the thrust of the article. Scientists need to use the term evolution, when it is appropriate. We also need to educate the population about science.
Signs that science education is slipping in America are all around us. Mathematics test scores are dropping because we are largely replacing the educational philosophy of the teaching of understanding of concepts for a policy of "no child left untested". Just note that all the major news feeds lump "science" and "technology", with the writers and editors largely unable to distinguish the difference between the two. Typically, what amounts to an on line advertisement for a new gaming technology or the psychological state of NASA astronauts is more likely to pass as a "SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY" story than is a story of a science issue. Even, when one looks at stories that should attempt to explain the science behind such topics, they tend to be covered more as if they were gossip columns or curiosity vignettes instead. Just take a look at GoggleNews feeds today, for a mindcheck.
Yes, it is time for scientists to begin to educate with regard to the pervasive evidence for evolution in our lives. A good place to start is at the molecular level, such as microbial genetics, where the public may hopefully be better able to understand the concepts involved and upon which they can build a greater level of understanding to address much more complicated issues, such issues as the evolution of human behavior. The world needs a better understaning of the latter, if we, Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758, are collectively to evolove in directions other than leading to our own extinction, as the vast majority (>90% of all species) have done.
I don't know about religious fanaticism, but religion tends to include an element of personal revelation, or truth by testimony. For example, there is no way, even in principle, for you and I to verify that Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus.
All scientific claims, on the other hand, can be verified by you or I personally, if we have the time and skill. That verification, of course, while very difficult to describe in a systematic way, is certainly not arbitrary. One can do a bad job at this verification. This is the case with creationists- they are doing a bad job of verifying the evidence that supports evolution, either because they aren't good enough at this area of biology, or don't subscribe to basic philosophical tenants of science. In any case, it is then perfectly appropriate for their arguments to be attacked. This has nothing to do with fanaticism, religious or otherwise.
The counter-evolutionistas love to huff and puff until they find a person who so soundly refutes them that they have no possible comeback. Then they ignore that person and go on making their ridiculous claims elsewhere as if they have not just been shown to be absurd.
It's frustrating. You make the same point over and over. You refute the same idiocy over and over. Nothing changes. It's like a sick game to them. They're like the baby that keeps throwing its strained peas on the floor, and we keep picking them up.
It doesn't matter how much evidence we have. It doesn't matter how many times their objections to the theory are answered. It's not about truth to them, its about belief. Specifically, control of belief, which is religion's bread and butter. It's sophistry, plain and simple. They don't argue to arrive at the truth through a dialectic process. They argue to protect their untenable belief system from anything that might threaten it.
I would say that "Deliberate and venal ignorance" is about the best working definition of "Evil" that I can come up with. Counter-evolutionistas are evil.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yes. Gravity is the tool of Satan, trying to pull everything down closer to Hell. You need to pray until you learn to fly, to avoid the Devil pulling you earthward.
(oh crap... I'm giving them ideas, aren't I?)
"Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
...these studies.
Evolution represents increases in complexity and general improvements in abilities and survivability over a timescale of tens of thousands of years. Small changes in a species due to external stimuli isn't really evolution. Change does not imply evolution.
If I have a culture of viruses, and I expose them to a toxin, after several generations the viruses that I have may be resistant to this toxin. We have observed the process of (artificial) selection, not evolution.
The difference here is the time scale. Implying evolution can be observed in the lab is like looking at the temperature fluctuations throughout a week and claiming to be observing global warming.
The question still remains, when option C is taken, where does the guilt come from?
Guilt comes from knowing that I have intentionally done someone harm and caused suffering. Only a psychopath anti-social doesn't give a damn about other people. Atheists are not psychopaths. Guilt comes from compassion and empathy with the other person - not right or wrong.
I have NO qualms cutting someone open in order to save their life - even if this causes them a great deal of pain in an extreme situation where anaestesia isn't available. Even if by doing so I put their life at significant risk - if the possible benefits outweight the risks. Because I know that my goal is to HELP. If I did everything right, but the patient died - then I did everything I could, and I don't feel guilty. He was going to die anyway. I tried to help, increase the odds, but it wasn't enough.
But inflicting pain for pain's sake - I don't get my kicks that way. Religion has nothing to do with it.
If guilt is the punishment and contentment is the reward, what biological fracture dictates the line between punishment and reward?
You're the one who introduced punishment and reward, not me. Then you ask me questions in those terms. That "bait and switch" doesn't make for a logical argument. I have no time for you if what you are going to do is argue with yourself to "prove" your point.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.