A new poll shows that the way you ask people about evolution can drastically change their response.
Researchers show that when the word “human” is replaced with "elephant” in the evolution question, 75% of Americans agree—about 25 percentage points higher than before.
Other urls found in this thread:
nydailynews.com
sciencemag.org
evolution.berkeley.edu
scienceblogs.com
tnjn.org
mmbr.asm.org
twitter.com
learn to post links when you're citing something pls.
Sounds interesting. Post link!
evolution is not a fact, it's a description.
Believing in something is called a religion.
lol
>evolution is not a fact, it's a description.
>Believing in something is called a religion.
That's a little backwards.
Evolution is a process we've observed. In the case of domestic plants and animals, we've even directed it. The word "evolution" itself is a symbol, but it represents observed facts.
Evolution isn't subject to your belief any more than algebra is.
>Evolution isn't subject to your belief any more than algebra is.
then why are there polls about people believing or not believing in evolution?
Also evolution includes macroevolution, which is fictitious at best.
>then why are there polls about people believing or not believing in evolution?
Because religion exists and the Western World is democratic, i.e. each individual's feels come first
>then why are there polls about people believing or not believing in evolution?
To see how many people deny obvious facts.
nydailynews.com
>sciencemag.org
Basically, people want to think humans are speshul.
>To see how many people deny obvious facts.
evolution is not a fact.
Mutations are a fact.
Having an increase or decrease in the number of chromosomes with viable individuals who are able to reproduce (and manage to do so) is not a fact.
>macroevolution is fiction
>what is a biome wide selection pressure
>what are the big insect fossils
Faggot
>no evidence whatsoever
>citing unrelated notions
but hey, at least you tried.
Try a thought experiment user, one of the major limiting factors on the size of insects is their respiratory efficiency
If there was a way to increase the amount of oxygen in the air they could grow larger, Google if you must, people have proven this in the lab
In the Cretaceous period there was a much higher concentration of oxygen in the air, we have fossils of very large insects from this period
Change a selection pressure over a biome and what do you know, you've got macroevolution
Jesus why do I even bother, good bait faggot
I really don't see how that would imply "macroevolution".
Insects from now get bigger if they have more oxygen, cool story.
But you're saying some "insects" from long ago without the same genetic material were different from the insects today? What a fucking shocker.
Why do I even bother myself.
You can't even into basic logic.
You fundamentally misunderstand evolution and natural selection
>atheists are still force meme'ing evolution as science's lord and savior
Evolution and the evolutionary tree are bullshit. Horizontal gene transfer of successful genes from other animals must be by far the dominating factor for species development and hence why most animals have similar features. A DAG is far more logical than a tree that throws away good features from other branches.
>inB4 "B-but if you don't support evolution then you're a stupid spaghetti monster!! Who cares if the odds of it happening by random chance are 1 in a number bigger than all the space and time in the universe. I don't believe in religion so the first atheistic answer is the infallible one! Only the people who agree are enlightened and their opinions valid!"
No you fundamentally misunderstand why you're wrong, and cognitive dissonance is preventing you from seeing your illogical arguments.
>buzzwords
Can you honestly not see that natural selection could operate at a level higher than at the species level?
Some significant environmental change, for example, an ice age, would bring directional selection pressures to more than one species.
...
>Some significant environmental change, for example, an ice age, would bring directional selection pressures to more than one species
I'm sorry how does this allow the modification of the number of chromosomes again?
>moving goalposts
see, you can't explain how there can exist individuals with more/less chromosomes than others AND are capable of sexual reproduction in such a fashion that they can transmit this feature.
Is down syndrome evolution?
how do you explain there are species with different numbers of chromosomes?
down syndrome is two chromosomes from one parent
biologists claim you can get an extra chromosome when one of them gets cut in two
Ah I see, you're this guy, huh?
Before we can have a meaningful discussion about evolution and what drives it you should probably read this
evolution.berkeley.edu
And this
The blind watchmaker, Dawkins, ISBN 0393315703
Happy learning user :)
Kek, don't bother, user is confused about chromosomes, I can almost smell an incoming
>I'm not reading no jew book
once again you just dodge the interesting questions instead of dealing with them
no need to read your bs field user.
This is why people say biology is a soft science, and you just showed how you think irrationally like a female.
Bazinga, did I see it coming, or did I see it coming
>no need to read anything
>doesn't know anything
i didn't think people like you existed, but there you are
>I can't answer
>instead I'll just pretend he's confused
you seem pretty confused yourself.
Cognitive dissonance much?
No user, you misunderstand, genotype is not just the number of chromosomes, read the resources in the link and the book, they won't take long.
>I can't answer scientific criticism
>I'll just ad hominem instead
well at least you tried.
Topkek, you don't even know what a species is, you think that every species has a different number of chromosomes, like that's the defining feature of evolution, grape ferns and hedgehogs have the same number of chromosomes you fucking retard
>you think that every species has a different number of chromosomes
no I don't, I'm asking you how you justify that there are species with different numbers of chromosomes.
You can't into simple fucking logic, why do I even bother.
First result in Google should sort you out, son
scienceblogs.com
Holy shit nigga, are you actually retarded? Is this your actual critique?
>hurt durr natural selection can't change the number of chromosomes
Do you have to wear a helmet just to be safe when you ride the bus?
Literally Google "how can evolution change the number of chromosomes"
Mechanisms of this change have been well understood for decades, decades. You are literally decades behind the rest of us
Holy shit you are actually the most pathological kind of idiot, armed with your bulletproof conviction that only you know the true true, and that you don't need no book learnin'
You actively reduce the intelligence of everyone you talk to, hell, even being in the same room as you probably reduces your victims iq by about a point per minute
Read a fucking book for once in your miserable life, you ingrate, pay attention in your biology classes, ffs you owe it to the rest of the world
>Believing in something is called a religion.
You don't have to believe in the truth, it will always be true. Lies are something that you need to believe in.
hahaha
>USA USA USA
btw. here is the paper in case someone is interested:
tnjn.org
I don't see anything about the elephant however...
Care to share your source OP?
Evolution happens
>doesn't understand evolution
>thinks biology is soft as a result
>thinks all females are dumb
topkek, this must be one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on Veeky Forums. Go back to whatever safe space you came from and never come back.
most likely /pol/
> projecting
you still here /sjw/tard ?
it's all just old people and evangelical Protestants.
51% of Americans under 30 now believe in secular evolution (and 73% believe in some form of evolution)
...
calm down trigglypuff
the fuck happened to greece
christianity
Greek here, orthodox christianity has always been pretty strong here owing to being the main proliferators of orthodox christianity since the Byzantine era. That said, these stats are from 2006 and they must have fallen. Even our PM is an atheist. So it's not as bad as it looks.
I do the bulk of my work in genomics and I tend to dissociate from the crowd treating evolution by natural selection like a secular religion. They have done more damage to quality science in the past half century than fundamentalist religious people ever could, mostly by extrapolating the theory inappropriately with no evidence (e.g. the daft and baseless concept of a "tree of life" based off eukaryotic speciation) or defining the mechanism so vaguely that it is useless, taking tautology for profundity.
Thankfully we are slowly nearing the end of the dark, dark ages of assuming the universality of evolution by natural selection, at least in the fields most damaged by the cult (particularly microbiology). I wonder when that will filter down to the general population.
There is no "tree of life" outside the eukaryota, but a vast network of horizontal gene transfer. Natural selection of heritable traits is not the main driver of prokaryotic speciation. Prokaryotes are not monophyletic. And yet we were all taught the contrary based on no evidence whatsoever.
you can have HGT instead of breeding in evolution
Just a reminder that "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are words invented by creationists and not used in accredited biology.
Not him, but your response to his question only consists of name calling without forming an answer to refute his point. It's no better to say someone is ignorant for not reading from a passage while you indulge in not responding with examples from the data.
Yes but it not Darwinian evolution by natural selection. If you don't see the problem you are likely guilty and/or a victim of:
>defining the mechanism so vaguely that it is useless, taking tautology for profundity
A horizonal gene transfer network is qualitatively different from linear, tree-like seleciton. It can converge on solutions faster. It can converge on solutions Darwinian selection could not have converged on.
Some time ago (and even today outside of specialist fields) if someone (who would certainly get labelled a creationist by the furious cult) would express doubt that a particular pathway could have evolved by natural selection - he could say it seems extremely unlikely given the number of generations or complexity involved - he would have been laughed at for his small-mindedness and lack of appreciation how wonderful evolution by natural selection is.
But we had no models to prove what we laughed at him for not knowing. Not for lack of looking, mind you. Yet we still asserted that it was known for a fact evolution by natural selection was responsible. It was a sacrosanct axiom, to the extent that the fact something exist was ipso facto considered proof of it having evolved by natural selection.
And in the end the "creationist" was right on this count (or not depending on the particular pathway). There ARE pathways which are by many orders of magnitude more likely to have evolved by a mechanism like HGT, and most likely impossible to have emerged by selection of heritable traits. The tree of life created by Darwinian natural selection was a fairy tale baselessly accepted as dogma and a major obstacle to genuine investigation of how the bulk of genetic information that exists came about.
Meant to reply to instead of , sorry!
Can you expand on this in simpler terms? If kit using a tree model, what kind of object would you ascribe evolution to?
I would recommend this article as a good intro, though we've progressed quite a bit since it was published.
mmbr.asm.org
Incidentally for a long time Woese himself was quite a figure of ridicule for daring to investigate the validity established dogma, though he has since been vindicated.
And just for the sake of jargon clarity:
>How the Microbial World Saved Evolution from the Scylla of Molecular Biology and the Charybdis of the Modern Synthesis
The "modern synthesis" of the title refers to the modern formulation of the paradigm of evolution by natural selection.
His """""point""""" is that nobody has addressed how organisms with differing numbers of chromosomes can arise, I guess I assumed I was talking to someone who was capable of following my instruction to google "how can evolution change the number of chromosomes" or the link provided by user directly above my post.
The point isn't to gain information in order to have a better understanding of the world, but to bait people like you into spoonfeeding information until you give up, after which victory over you can be declared.
I honestly thought the point was to entertain us all with his court jester antics
very interesting article
>thinking factuality is a consensus
There is a significant difference to the answers the same person will give you if you ask these two questions:
"Do you want to switch to a penicillin the bacteria has not yet evolved a defense against or stay on this one?"
"Do you want to cheer and wave a flag for the assholes on the coast who keep ruining things for you or for your local church with all the good people you know?"
No surprise you're getting different answers - you're asking different questions.
To anyone who is scientifically literate, the difference between the questions in the OP is trivial.