It could also mean none…
Anyway, a lot of them do have PHDs in Biology…
You could just admit that you were wrong.
And no, your statement is still false, and that this point, appears to be a deliberate attempt to deceive.
False in what way
. And decieved whom?
I had said a lot of them have PHDs in Biology… and they do… that’s a fact.
I don’t know why you guys are so eager to accuse anyone who disagrees of deception!
There aren’t a lot of PhDs in biology that signed it.
It was designed to fool you, and it worked. Instead of getting angry at those who have fooled you, you have decided to falsely insist that you weren’t fooled.
No. This confirms to me that you are running into a comprehension issue. You are misunderstanding Roy’s statement and construing something which simply isn’t there—just as you have done with some of my statements. (Again, I consider this simply a matter of understanding, not disingenuousness on your part.)
I agree that your English comprehension skills are usually quite good. But on this thread: not so consistently.
Yes. I understand that. I just wanted to make clear beyond all doubt (and to avoid a misunderstanding among other readers) that I’ve never made such accusations about personal aggrandizement.
Once again, you have misunderstood what they are saying. They are not casually and recklessly accusing “anyone who disagrees of deception.” They have simply observed and noted what I have also noticed: There are plenty of anti-evolution advocates who have misrepresented the science and and who have deceptively spun the Dissent from Darwinism Petition for propaganda purposes. There is a difference between mere disagreement about evolution and deception. (I will even allow for a grey area that separates overzealous rhetorical spin from misrepresentation and lying. Even so, I’m very disappointed in such behaviors, especially from Christ-followers. Of course, many who are wrong about the science are sincerely and honestly wrong. Not all are lying or trying to be deceptive. But some are.)
I find it interesting that some Discovery Institute affiliates and fans so often vilify evolutionary biology–and even use the Dissent from Darwinism Petition to bolster their arguments–while either never mentioning or even being aware that various Discovery Institute scholars affirm Common Descent and evolutionary processes. Indeed, a lot of DI fans have have been utterly shocked to learn that their “heroes” at the Discovery Institute affirm evolution as valid science.
2 Likes
Define “lot”…
You might be looking at it totally differently from me…
How? By what grammatical contortion could it mean “none”?
4 Likes
In the context of the declaration, “a lot” would mean “virtually all,” not "much less than half.
It’s about deception. You still haven’t even admitted that you were wrong, BTW.
When you wrote, "
You were WRONG. Why not admit it?
“A lot” is still wrong. Why not admit it?
Why do you choose to be a willing party to their deception, Ashwin? Pride?
1 Like
When did a lot mean “virtually all”?
A lot means significant number.
You are misreading a context here.
Actually i don’t see anything wrong in thinking @Roy meant no PHDs… he clarified later on… and I replied to it.
There you go again… adding context to what I said.
What deception is there? They give the list for anyone to check.
@Mercer: why don’t you keep your anger out of the forum and actually talk to people, instead of going on all out attacks over perceived wrongs.
This is my last reply to you on this subject.
Edit: As to the new York times post, the info is outdated… are you now involved in deception? Or do I just see it as an argument in good faith?
Exactly. Without the associated baggage, I would sign it myself. It is simply devious to phrase the original document this way and claim that the number of signees indicates a theory in crisis.
4 Likes
Can anyone find in that article where it actually substantiates the claim that 1/3 of biologists “question Darwinism?” It just says “Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s theory is inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology” but give no source for these “estimates,”
3 Likes
As already pointed out, the real percentage of evolutionary biologists who know 19th century Darwinism is inadequate is probably close to 100%. I wonder if he just made up the number for a click-bait headline?
1 Like
That’s the thing about estimates – anybody can make them.
1 Like
Even i do say what i said. YET ITS EVOLUTIONISTS and those defending it WHO proclaim SCIENTISTS agree with evolution/most scientists agree with evolution and so on and on. They never say ONLY biologists WHO STUDY ORIGINS of biology have any claim to being a SCIENTIST WITH credibility as a scientist on these conclusions.
In reality its anyone who puts their mind to it with a foundation of knowledge that is worthy WHO can aggressively opine on these matters.
So these folks in this event DO have credibility regardless of education. THEY put their mind to it.
Its the scientists who never put their mind to it WHO are irrelevant, possibly including many biologists in origins who never did anything beyond their twenties.
Origin matters is a intellectual exercise and so anyone , pass intellectual muster, is worthy to be in the fight. Its not about degree-s on a wall.
Pre existing beliefs is okay BUT those going into evolutionary biology are already convinced. its not like a pure scientific mindset is controlling them. They are very inclined that way uniquely.
In the context of a declaration about biology, of course.
No, you were wrong, but won’t admit it. Roy corrected your false claim.
What has changed since the NYT story, then?
Sorry, but you are now a willing participant in their deception.
2 Likes
Just had a question so perhaps the lay person such as myself who mostly reads here can understand more. The question I have is what are the non -Darwinian mechanisms you speak of that are important.
Thanks.
1 Like
If I may: One of the chief mechanisms is genetic drift. Under a strict (and oversimplified, I admit) Darwinian model every mutation will have an impact on fitness, either negative or positive, and so will either increase or decrease in prevalance under the influence of natural selection, until it either disappears entirely from the population, or is present in every member of the population.
The current model is that most mutations are either neutral in terms of fitness, or slightly deleterious to the point that they do not necessarily result in the organism dying before it can reproduce. Under this model, whether a new mutation is fixed in the population is mostly a matter of chance (drift).
2 Likes
That’s a very helpful explanation for a lay person.
Can I ask a followup question for you, @swamidass or the other biologists.
Given most mutations are essentially neutral, what’s the “next step” that makes them useful from an evolutionary standpoint? In other words do neutral mutations pile up to a point where under selective pressure the right combination of neutral mutations result provide a positive benefit, or if not, how do we get from neutral mutations to positive benefit?
3 Likes
One of the things that neutral mutations do is open up more possibilities for subsequent beneficial mutations. An easily understood example would be a mutation that duplicates a gene. This might have no effect on the organism’s fitness – regulatory mechanisms could keep the output of the two copies at the same level as a single copy – but the presence of a duplicate provides redundancy, and means that one copy is now free to acquire more mutations that change its function without any loss of the original function.
In a different way, adding lots of neutral genetic variation in the population for a particular gene opens up many more possibilities for subsequent beneficial mutations, since many more possible versions of the gene can now be reached by a single mutation.
6 Likes