Liberals know little about evolution?

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 4, 2014

Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Megan McCardle at Bloomberg:

In the ultra-liberal enclave I grew up in, the liberals were at least as fiercely tribal as any small-town Republican, though to be sure, the targets were different. Many of them knew no more about the nuts and bolts of evolution and other hot-button issues than your average creationist; they believed it on authority. And when it threatened to conflict with some sacred value, such as their beliefs about gender differences, many found evolutionary principles as easy to ignore as those creationists did. More.

Couple things here: Let’s assume that “creationists” means something a creationist might at least recognize.

Hey it’s not a quibble. Atheist mathematician Peter Woit and anti-ID biology prof blogger PZ Myers have both been labelled in some quarters as “creationists” (here and here).* So I clarify: I mean people who think that at least some life forms appeared as an act of divine creation. That’s the traditional meaning.

Most creationists actually know more about evolution than McCardle’s liberals. Of course they do. If one truly believes fatuous effluvia from pop sci mags, one needs no reasons other than: It’s me. It’s here. It’s now. It’s in. It’s cool.

The intellectually serious doubter needs fact-based reasons. And in this case, reasons are hardly in short supply. Darwin’s followers have spent so much time stamping out dissent, they haven’t noticed the looming pile of contrary evidence, let alone done much to address it.

Additional semantic note: Based on experience, I profess astonishment that there are still people around who believe that today, liberals are anti-authoritarian. Most anti-authoritarian causes of any reach or depth today are not liberal (in the usual sense of leftist or progressive).

At one time, liberals were low authoritarians, but now that they have embraced utopian politics, they certainly do not mind imposing their views and values on everyone.

But the creationists still know more about evolution than they do, and always will. Because they want to know, that’s why.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

* Both these guys got pegged as “creationists” for dismissing currently popular science circus bandwagons. That should tell many people more than it probably will about where things are really headed.

Comments

Jerry: "It seems like you and Arcartia_Bogart are doubles partners." I am enjoying watching WD400 wipe the floor with you from the sidelines. It is somewhat reflective of Behe's debacle at the Dover trials. I was confident that WD400 would have no problem when I saw Querius join the discussion with his unique style of trying to prove his point by not presenting a cogent argument.Acartia_bogart_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Right. So, in 22 you were talking about speciation, we know from pop. gen. that it takes only an average on migrant per generation to prevent allopatric speciation from occuring, so you were wrong when you talking about the ease with which speciation occurs. For some reason, by the time you get to 28 you know think this term is "nebulous", but in 32 we are back to a concrete meaning. You'll excuse me for finding it hard to know what point you are trying to me.wd400_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

You used the term, I’m sure you meant something by it.
You used the phrase in response so I assumed you were on the same page. Also, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopatric_speciation
Allopatric speciation (from the ancient Greek allos, "other" + Greek patris, "fatherland") or geographic speciation is speciation that occurs when biological populations of the same species become vicariant, or isolated from each other to an extent that prevents or interferes with genetic interchange. This can be the result of population dispersal leading to emigration, or by geographical changes such as mountain formation, island formation, or large scale human activities (for example agricultural and civil engineering developments). The vicariant populations then undergo genotypic or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to different selective pressures, (b) they independently undergo genetic drift, and ( c) different mutations arise in the populations' gene pools. The separate populations over time may evolve distinctly different characteristics. If the geographical barriers are later removed, members of the two populations may be unable to successfully mate with each other, at which point, the genetically isolated groups have emerged as different species. Allopatric isolation is a key factor in speciation and a common process by which new species arise. Adaptive radiation, as observed by Charles Darwin in Galapagos finches, is a consequence of allopatric speciation among island populations.
They use the phrase so I assume someone who is an expert would know what was meant by the phrase. But Wikipedia may not be a good source since they seem to think that Darwin's finches are different species. As you and I know, this is not true. It takes about 12-20 million years for that to happen. Maybe in another 9 million years. Of course humans and chimps were on a fast track. It seems like you and Arcartia_Bogart are doubles partners.jerry_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

He used the term, apparently to make a point, in 22.wd400_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

wd400, You wrote
...the ease with which population become seperate
Then, Jerry asked the question
What do we mean by separate populations? A nebulous concept in terms of evolution.
And he went on to give an example of why he thought the term, separate populations was "nebulous." To which you replied
You used the term, I’m sure you meant something by it.
Understand that Jerry just finished writing that he thought the term,separate populations, is "nebulous." Why are you asking him to define it??? O.o -QQuerius_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

What do we mean by separate populations? You used the term, I'm sure you meant something by it.wd400_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

from making a mistake about the ease with which population become separate
What do we mean by separate populations? A nebulous concept in terms of evolution. Oh, I know this is how it is supposed to start. But, where is the smoking gun? Darwin's finches have been in the Galapagos for 3 million years but still one species but separate populations. Meaningless!!!! No, I am not an expert in genetics though I have read enough of it to know when someone is dancing around an issue. And I have seen enough human behavior to know when there is no there, there. A couple tv commercials are appropriate. Where's the beef? By Wendy's several years ago and a Visa commercial where an artist was going on and on about his new painting was his greatest creation and then the camera revealed the canvass was blank. It turns out he had no money for paint. You and every other anti-ID person never present any beef or masterpiece, just criticism and words, words, words.jerry_{September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

You appear to be glossing over the bit where some knowledge of population genetics would have saved you from making a mistake about the ease with which population become seperate, Jerry. You should maybe look into it a little more, it's a very powerful field.wd400_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

It’s almost as if not understanding pop. gen. makes you fail to understand evolution…
It only explains trivial non relevant evolution. Apparently you don't understand the limitations of it. As far as chimp and humans no one understands the differerences. Apparently there are major differences in control networks and who knows what else. If you understand the differences, arrange for that tux so you will be able to look good when you get the award. I assume you will let others in on it.jerry_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

A few more less than flattering quotes on wd400's beloved neutral theory of evolution,,,
Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial - David Berlinski - November 2011 Excerpt: The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura's The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura's theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief. They allowed biologists to affirm that they welcomed responsible criticism. "A critique of neo-Darwinism," the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted, "can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science." By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/berlinski_on_darwin_on_trial053171.html Ann Gauger on genetic drift - August 2012 Excerpt: The idea that evolution is driven by drift has led to a way of retrospectively estimating past genetic lineages. Called coalescent theory, it is based on one very simple assumption — that the vast majority of mutations are neutral and have no effect on an organism’s survival. (For a review go here.) According to this theory, actual genetic history is presumed not to matter. Our genomes are full of randomly accumulating neutral changes. When generating a genealogy for those changes, their order of appearance doesn’t matter. Trees can be drawn and mutations assigned to them without regard to an evolutionary sequence of genotypes, since genotypes don’t matter. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/ann-gauger-on-genetic-drift/ Here is a Completely Different Way of Doing Science - Cornelius Hunter PhD. - April 2012 Excerpt: But how then could evolution proceed if mutations were just neutral? The idea was that neutral mutations would accrue until finally an earthquake, comet, volcano or some such would cause a major environmental shift which suddenly could make use of all those neutral mutations. Suddenly, those old mutations went from goat-to-hero, providing just the designs that were needed to cope with the new environmental challenge. It was another example of the incredible serendipity that evolutionists call upon. Too good to be true? Not for evolutionists. The neutral theory became quite popular in the literature. The idea that mutations were not brimming with cool innovations but were mostly bad or at best neutral, for some, went from an anathema to orthodoxy. And the idea that those neutral mutations would later magically provide the needed innovations became another evolutionary just-so story, told with conviction as though it was a scientific finding. Another problem with the theory of neutral molecular evolution is that it made even more obvious the awkward question of where these genes came from in the first place. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/here-is-completely-different-way-of.html Michael Behe on the theory of constructive neutral evolution - February 2012 Excerpt: I don’t mean to be unkind, but I think that the idea seems reasonable only to the extent that it is vague and undeveloped; when examined critically it quickly loses plausibility. The first thing to note about the paper is that it contains absolutely no calculations to support the feasibility of the model. This is inexcusable. - Michael Behe https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/michael-behe-on-the-theory-of-constructive-neutral-evolution/
Moreover, empirical evidence certainly does not offer compelling support for neutral theory,,, Here is a piece of evidence that is very antagonistic to the 'genetic drift' model of neo-Darwinists. To the disbelieving shock of many evolutionary scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence.
The Paradox of the “Ancient” (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637
According to prevailing evolutionary dogma, there ‘HAS’ to be ‘major genetic drift’ to the DNA of modern bacteria from 250 million years ago, even though, in the ever flexible theory of Darwinism, the morphology (shape) of the bacteria can be expected to remain exactly the same. In spite of their preconceived materialistic bias, scientists find there is no significant genetic drift from the ancient DNA. In fact recent research, with bacteria which are alive right now, has also severely weakened the ‘genetic drift’ argument of evolutionists from another angle:
The consequences of genetic drift for bacterial genome complexity – Howard Ochman – 2009 Excerpt: The increased availability of sequenced bacterial genomes allows application of an alternative estimator of drift, the genome-wide ratio of replacement to silent substitutions in protein-coding sequences. This ratio, which reflects the action of purifying selection across the entire genome, shows a strong inverse relationship with genome size, indicating that drift promotes genome reduction in bacteria. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/06/05/gr.091785.109
etc.. etc.. etc.. So basically, as is usual with Darwinian claims, when Darwinian claims for neutral theory are scrutinized for integrity, we find that all we really have is bluff and bluster instead of any substantiating evidence! Verse and Music:
Job 5:13 He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away. God of Wonders by Third Day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CBNE25rtnE
bornagain77_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

It is ironic that wd400 goes on and on, for months on end, about population genetics and neutral theory as if those two things settle the debate once and for all, since detailed analysis of population genetics and neutral theory reveal, as with all other lines of supposed evidence doe neo-Darwinism, gross deficiencies in the reductive materialistic, i.e. 'bottom up', framework of neo-Darwinism. Here are a few notes along that line:
Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory - 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf
Here is a short sweet overview of Mendel's Accountant:
When macro-evolution takes a final, it gets an "F" - Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory (Mendel's Accountant) Excerpt of Conclusion: This (computer) program (Mendel’s Accountant) is a powerful teaching and research tool. It reveals that all of the traditional theoretical problems that have been raised about evolutionary genetic theory are in fact very real and are empirically verifiable in a scientifically rigorous manner. As a consequence, evolutionary genetic theory now has no theoretical support—it is an indefensible scientific model. Rigorous analysis of evolutionary genetic theory consistently indicates that the entire enterprise is actually bankrupt. http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/06/god-versus-darwin-when-macro-evolution.html Haldane's Dilemma Excerpt: Haldane was the first to recognize there was a cost to selection which limited what it realistically could be expected to do. He did not fully realize that his thinking would create major problems for evolutionary theory. He calculated that in man it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 mutations (assuming 20 years per generation).,,, Man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations (Britten, 2002). So if man evolved from a chimp-like creature, then during that process there were at least 20 million mutations fixed within the human lineage (40 million divided by 2), yet natural selection could only have selected for 1,000 of those. All the rest would have had to been fixed by random drift - creating millions of nearly-neutral deleterious mutations. This would not just have made us inferior to our chimp-like ancestors - it surely would have killed us. Since Haldane's dilemma there have been a number of efforts to sweep the problem under the rug, but the problem is still exactly the same. ReMine (1993, 2005) has extensively reviewed the problem, and has analyzed it using an entirely different mathematical formulation - but has obtained identical results. John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 159-160 Walter ReMine on Haldane's Dilemma - interview http://kgov.com/Walter-ReMine-on-Haldanes-Dilemma Kimura's Quandary Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in response to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most 'evolution' must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom's (neo-Darwinism's) very validity. John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 161 - 162
A graph featuring 'Kimura's Distribution' being ‘properly used’ is shown in the following video:
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video https://vimeo.com/91162565 Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle - "Haldane's Ratchet" - Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford - 2013 Excerpt: We then perform large-scale experiments to examine the feasibility of the ape-to-man scenario over a six million year period. We analyze neutral and beneficial fixations separately (realistic rates of deleterious mutations could not be studied in deep time due to extinction). Using realistic parameter settings we only observe a few hundred selection-induced beneficial fixations after 300,000 generations (6 million years). Even when using highly optimal parameter settings (i.e., favorable for fixation of beneficials), we only see a few thousand selection-induced fixations. This is significant because the ape-to-man scenario requires tens of millions of selective nucleotide substitutions in the human lineage. Our empirically-determined rates of beneficial fixation are in general agreement with the fixation rate estimates derived by Haldane and ReMine using their mathematical analyses. We have therefore independently demonstrated that the findings of Haldane and ReMine are for the most part correct, and that the fundamental evolutionary problem historically known as "Haldane's Dilemma" is very real. Previous analyses have focused exclusively on beneficial mutations. When deleterious mutations were included in our simulations, using a realistic ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutation rate, deleterious fixations vastly outnumbered beneficial fixations. Because of this, the net effect of mutation fixation should clearly create a ratchet-type mechanism which should cause continuous loss of information and decline in the size of the functional genome. We name this phenomenon "Haldane's Ratchet". http://media.wix.com/ugd/a704d4_47bcf08eda0e4926a44a8ac9cbfa9c20.pdf
bornagain77_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

It is hard to imagine all these tens of thousands of changes taking place in just one small population when the potential for separate populations was enormous. Amusingly, it's population genetics that let's us understand why the "potential for separate populations" is not enormous. As few as one migrants per generation (irrespective of population size) are enough to make otherwise isolated populations pull-together (as a result of sexual recombination). It's almost as if not understanding pop. gen. makes you fail to understand evolution...wd400_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Neutral theory explains the non-coding DNA just as well as the coding (in fact, better, since the coding DNA is subject is negative selection and diverges slower than the the neutral expectation).
But the real differences may be elsewhere and if they are in part in the non-coding region then they are just as subject to selection as the coding region is because they affect expression of characteristics. It is hard to imagine all these tens of thousands of changes taking place in just one small population when the potential for separate populations was enormous. After all they were fairly mobile and supposedly lived in small groups. You would have expected hundreds of offshoots from the supposed common ancestor of the chimp and human, some almost half human to use an expression. And no chimps are not even close to human.
Second, you said it was an error to equate anything in pop. gen. with evolution, that’s obviously wrong (as you now admit).
I will repeat. It explains trivial things in the evolution debate, that’s all. And no one gives a rat's rear end about trivial changes when it comes to evolution. For medical and agriculture concerns it means a lot.jerry_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

If you disagree that the individual mutation rate is equal to the population substituion rate under neutrality you are wrong. Similarly, if you tink pop. gen. breaks down when you add seletion you are wrong, and if you think neutral theory leads to punk. eq. then, absent an explanation as to why, I'm going to conclude that you are wrong. The reference you suggest lead to a book that I don't have, and my library doesn't have an electronic version of, and the finding that so called silent substitutions can be subject to selection. I can only talk to the second one, and can't see why it's evidence against neutral theory. We know some variants are subject to selection, why should adding these make much difference (indeed, remember that only a a couple of percent of most animal genomes are protein-coding, so capable of having silent mutations of this sort).wd400_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Yes, I'm afraid WD writes here with all the vapid self-assurance of a tabloid columnist.Axel_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Citation: http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho37.htm#Notes In particular, ref notes 15 and 16. As for your "point", you haven't proven folks at UD are not well-informed, just that you don't agree with them - so claiming the "average creationist" is less informed is a comparison without a baseline. Further, less informed could still be (and is) much more informed than a liberal (or your average evolutionist, for that matter).drc466_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Anyway, my point is that the folks that read UD are much more invested in creationism than most people that call themselves creationists. Imagine how much less informed the average creationist is. The so called creation-evolution debate has little to do withe evolutionary biology and a lot more to do with a (mostly USian) culture war.wd400_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

It's easy to model selection in pop. gen. I'll need a citation for Current studies (e.g. fruit flies, bacteria) show that neutral theory is problematic at best and flat out wrong at worst for smaller species – most mutations are not neutral, and do have an impact on the survivability of the specie (I persume you meant the survivability of the individual/i> rather than the species) The posts I link to show how Lenski's experiments match netural theory (about the expected number of mutations have fixed between populations). Of course it is only my own conclusion that neutral theory leads to punc eq, but I haven’t ever heard a good argument to the contrary, so I will continue to hold that opinion. That doesn’t mean I think neutral theorists believe it. There is no obvious reason for the two to be linked. You are welcome to belief whatever you want, but if you want to convince someone you actually have to make an argument.wd400_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

wd400, Kimura's neutral theory basically said that most mutations were neutral, not subject to natural selection; that the mutations built up relative to population size. Population genetics is simply a mathematical calculation of how a variation becomes fixed in a population based on population size. It has to assume neutral theory as a basis, because if you apply natural selection (fitness) to the calculation, you change the chance that certain variations will make it to the next generation (dead fruit flies don't breed). Current studies (e.g. fruit flies, bacteria) show that neutral theory is problematic at best and flat out wrong at worst for smaller species - most mutations are not neutral, and do have an impact on the survivability of the species, which reduces the chance of mutations making it to the next generation, and blows up the theoretical mathematic models of pop gen (I like that term, it has a certain amount of built-in irony). Now, let's assume that my above description is only, say, 34.76% accurate. Your blather over the specific population mathematics is irrelevant to whether that description is closer to accurate than any liberal is likely to provide. (Go ahead - I'll wait while you go ask your local self-proclaimed liberal to describe neutral theory and pop gen). Again, you want to argue semantically - does having an "mostly incorrect", "partially false", or "incomplete" understanding of a topic (e.g. population genetics) qualify as not knowing more about it than someone who isn't even aware of the topic at all? As for "[your] own comments in the [aside] prove the same" - please provide the link showing a) that Lenski's bacteria provide evidence supporting neutral theory, or b) any laboratory experiment demonstrating neutral theory expression in live species. Of course it is only my own conclusion that neutral theory leads to punc eq, but I haven't ever heard a good argument to the contrary, so I will continue to hold that opinion. That doesn't mean I think neutral theorists believe it.drc466_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Jerry, Neutral theory explains the non-coding DNA just as well as the coding (in fact, better, since the coding DNA is subject is negative selection and diverges slower than the the neutral expectation). Second, you said it was an error to equate anything in pop. gen. with evolution, that's obviously wrong (as you now admit). drc_446, Read the posts. You'll see they authors, and many readers, failed to grasp simple mathematical truths. It's evident from those threads that the authors had no idea what neutral theory is, and you own comments in the aise prove the same. And these are the most engaged creationists -- most people who call themselves by that name do so for social and culutral reason (just like most "evolutionists").wd400_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

A_B: 1) Logic alone would insist that creationists, who self-identify as such because they are involved in the CvE issue, would know more than "liberals", who may or may not have any interest in CvE. Your laughter notwithstanding, it would be illogical to assume otherwise. 2) Literally millions of pages are written, and millions of dollars spent, on the CvE issue. You even participate in the "lively debate" yourself, on these pages. To deny there is a lively debate you must take the last refuge of the evolutionist - semantics! Hie Thee to a Dictionary! wd400: At some point, it will occur to an evolutionist that just because a creationist doesn't agree with a theory, doesn't mean they don't understand the theory. Your example of the supposed inability of creationists to understand population genetics supports the point of the article above, rather than refutes it. Because regardless of whether you think they understand it, they are nonetheless aware of its existence. They are able to point out its weaknesses as an attempt to explain molecules-to-man evolution. They can argue the mathematical assumptions and biological implications and experimental confirmation/refutation of "neutral" mutations. The average liberal (by self-identification probably more interested in politics than biology) may not even know what "population genetics" is, let alone how/if it relates to evolutionary theory. As an aside, neutral theory would seem to me nothing more than an attempt to genetically rationalize the "hopeful monster" of punc eq. Like most evolutionary theories, it suffers from an extreme lack of experimental, real-world confirmation at an evolutionary scale. Get back to me when Lenski's bacteria "neutral theory" their way to non-bacteria, or e. coli start popping out MRSA, e.g.drc466_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

'Apparently you do not understand much either if you equate anything in population genetics with evolution.' Steady on there, Jerry. Because people were trying to stifle their laughter, he thought he was on a roll with his earlier 'withering' posts! It looks as if he's going to keep us entertained all day.Axel_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

What? Did you read those posts? Neutral theory, a population genetic theory, explains almost all the differences between human and chimp genomes. Do you not think that’s evidence that pop. gen. is crucial to understanding evolution?
Two things wrong with this and maybe there are more. First do you think the only differences between humans and chimps are in the coding parts of the genome? Could the major difference lie elsewhere? Somewhere beyond the ability of small changes in the coding regions to explain. Second, human;chimp differences are only a very small part of evolution. The whole spectrum of changes from single cell organisms to what we see today have to be explained and most of this is beyond population genetics. If you disagree and can show why, order your tux for Stockholm. I am not belittling population genetics, just putting it in its place. It explains trivial things in the evolution debate, that's all.jerry_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Apparently you do not understand much either if you equate anything in population genetics with evolution. What? Did you read those posts? Neutral theory, a population genetic theory, explains almost all the differences between human and chimp genomes. Do you not think that's evidence that pop. gen. is crucial to understanding evolution?wd400_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

Acartia, actually the popular science seem to have more facts in them then the alleged evolutionary science. Why do you think I left evolution after 41 years of being a pro evolutionist. I continue to see what opened my eyes 6 years ago. I continue to see more philosophy in evolution then I see actual science. And the fact that you are laughing proves my point.wallstreeter43_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

Most people that aruge about evolution on the internet, for or against, know very little about the topic. I certainly don’t think creationists know any more than the average — remember the time reader after reader here failed to understand even the most basic finding of a fist year course of population genetics?
Apparently you do not understand much either if you equate anything in population genetics with evolution.jerry_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Long live the cult of Darwin. One must be initiated into it's mysteries. No outsider can possibly understand. How less a true believer.Mung_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Most people that aruge about evolution on the internet, for or against, know very little about the topic. I certainly don't think creationists know any more than the average -- remember the time reader after reader here failed to understand even the most basic finding of a fist year course of population genetics?wd400_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

News, you equate the popular science shows (NG, Cosmos, Nature of Things, etc.) with the actual science. That is like equating news broadcasts with actual reality. They are nothing more than a Sesame Street view of the actual science. Much in the same way that Sunday School is a dumbed down version of the bible. By their nature, it is not possible for creationists to understand evolution better than anyone (let alone, liberals). That would be like saying that the KKK understands race retaliations best, or that Hitler understands the Torah better than a Jew.Acartia_bogart_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

In a world where any TV airhead can read Darwinbabble off the teleprompter, if you want to know what is really going on with evolution, you would do vastly better to be a creationist. You can find out the actual theories, warts and all. From the airhead, you can find out how "evolution" explains why gentlemen prefer blondes (no wait, that was a hoax) or why men spend more money in restaurants than women or why little girls are dressed in pink (they weren't until the twentieth century, but never mind - "evolution" is timeless, isn't it?) You can definitely learn more real evolution from creationists than from Darwin's followers, whether you end up preferring that theory or theirs, or a different one.News_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply