Evolution Observed

[ChristineM]

That’s funny stuff!
And yet, I read and write scientific papers almost everyday.

You do? What discipline(s), What is your PhD in?

From what i have seen of your writing (admittedly only on RF) i certainly find it hard to believe that you write scientific papers or even read them. Most people at least learn something from what they read.

 

[Sapiens]

You do? What discipline(s), What is your PhD in?

From what i have seen of your writing (admittedly only on RF) i certainly find it hard to believe that you write scientific papers or even read them. Most people at least learn something from what they read.

I'd guess physician, dentist or engineer, many love to play scientist.

 

[ChristineM]

I'd guess physician, dentist or engineer, many love to play scientist.

Even those professions are pushing it, certainly here in Europe they require more than creationist woo to pass the exams.

Unless of course he really is very deviously clever and is putting on an act for RF... nar, can't see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even those professions are pushing it, certainly here in Europe they require more than creationist woo to pass the exams.

Unless of course he really is very deviously clever and is putting on an act for RF... nar, can't see it.

In the U.S. for some strange reason there are a fair number of dentists that are creationists. These tend to be older dentists from the days when medical school rejects would tend to go into dentistry. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.

 

[Polymath257]

Even those professions are pushing it, certainly here in Europe they require more than creationist woo to pass the exams.

Unless of course he really is very deviously clever and is putting on an act for RF... nar, can't see it.

In the US, there are a fairly large number of creationist physicians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the US, there are a fairly large number of creationist physicians.

Sad, but true. What I have noticed is that some of the creationists that push their beliefs through various lectures etc. tend to be dentists. I have also seen quite a few dentists fall for "woo" when it comes to cures. Something that they should have been covered by their education, why one does not accept treatment that has not undergone proper testing. As a result we have Reiki, homeopathy, etc.

 

[ChristineM]

In the U.S. for some strange reason there are a fair number of dentists that are creationists. These tend to be older dentists from the days when medical school rejects would tend to go into dentistry. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.

I see. In Europe one must qualify in a (i believe 4 university year) course to practice as a dentist?

Perhaps Bible belt qualifications are not so stringent. "Our creator will help me extract this infected molar without pain to the patient" ... "Ok you passed, here's your certificate"

 

[ChristineM]

In the US, there are a fairly large number of creationist physicians.

Perhaps this explains why the most medically advanced nation in the world is so far behind in Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan in life expectancy.

I see a paper in there somewhere ;-)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see. In Europe one must qualify in a (i believe 4 university year) course to practice as a dentist?

Perhaps Bible belt qualifications are not so stringent. "Our creator will help me extract this infected molar without pain to the patient" ... "Ok you passed, here's your certificate"

No, one must get a four year degree before even going to dental school. They need to learn chemistry and anatomy, but not too much in the other sciences. I was listening to an old Eugenie Scott video and she did complain about how evolution was taught, or not taught, in college. Sadly in some areas it is still a controversial subject and many colleges opt out on requiring people learn some basic reality.

 

[ChristineM]

No, one must get a four year degree before even going to dental school. They need to learn chemistry and anatomy, but not too much in the other sciences. I was listening to an old Eugenie Scott video and she did complain about how evolution was taught, or not taught, in college. Sadly in some areas it is still a controversial subject and many colleges opt out on requiring people learn some basic reality.

'tiz a sad world

 

[Skwim]

In the US, there are a fairly large number of creationist physicians.

Considering that all physicians are college educated, and that only 27% of the population with a college education believe in creationism, as opposed to 42% of the general public.
source

I think it's fair to conclude that at most 11% (27% of the 42%) of physicians believe in creationism. I say "at most" because physicians are required to take biological science courses, unlike liberal arts majors an engineering majors.



.

 

[Polymath257]

Considering that all physicians are college educated, and that only 27% of the population with a college education believe in creationism, as opposed to 42% of the general public.
source

I think it's fair to conclude that only about 11% (27% of the 42%) of physicians believe in creationism.
.

Hmm...for this, you wouldn't take 27% of 42%. You would take 27%. Also, it fails to address that physicians might be unrepresentative of the college educated population.

 

[Skwim]

Hmm...for this, you wouldn't take 27% of 42%. You would take 27%. Also, it fails to address that physicians might be unrepresentative of the college educated population.

I wondered about this and am ready to stand corrected, however, as you say, physicians might be unrepresentative of the college educated population, and, as I've pointed out in my now amplified post, would represent those more educated in the the biological sciences. So, even though you may be correct that one can't take 27% of 42%. a better representation of creationist physicians would be notably below 27%.

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Claims fall apart"?!
Those earlier fossils are mostly unicellular, and manifest no ancestral relationship to the fossils in the Cambrian! The Cambrian fossils appear abruptly, with no precursors evident.

What were you saying about dishonesty?

It is a little early to discuss my dishonesty when your example is not one that courts dishonesty. Do you have to be so hair trigger? It shows the bias I'm working against, but I'm aware of that already.

The abruptness is as much an artifact as it is real. The time that we are talking about is not nearly as abrupt as you want it to be and the record that is older is starting to reveal lines that lead to some of the Cambrian fauna as well as some that appear to go no where. Strict creationists have banked on the incredulity that arises for them out of the Cambrian to build a case without regard to understanding what is going on. I'm not seeing anything more than that here, with the usual add hominem to back it up by implying I'm dishonest.

 

[Polymath257]

I wondered about this and am ready to stand corrected, however, as you say, physicians might be unrepresentative of the college educated population, and, as I've pointed out in my now amplified post, would represent those more educated in the the biological sciences. So, even though you may be correct that one can't take 27% of 42%. a better representation of creationist physicians would be notably below 27%.

.

While better educated in *some* aspects of biology, the education is more directed to specifically human biology. This means that comparison with other species and thereby the basics of evolution are not part of the curriculum. Instead, the emphasis is more on how 'special' humans are, which can lead to more creationists ideas.

 

[Skwim]

While better educated in *some* aspects of biology, the education is more directed to specifically human biology. This means that comparison with other species and thereby the basics of evolution are not part of the curriculum. Instead, the emphasis is more on how 'special' humans are, which can lead to more creationists ideas.

Unless you've gone through medical school I can't buy your assessment of the specifics of their education. Having gone through college, I do know that certain general/overview preparatory undergrad courses are required in order to proceed further, which in the case of physicians would most surely included general biology courses--one or some of which would include the nature of evolution. And I don't see any course, on any level, emphasizing "how 'special' humans are."

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've read the entire paper and would encourage everyone to who is interested in natural history,

Obviously there is nothing in that paragraph, or the entire paper that alters the context, in fact he makes the same point more emphatically.:what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection

But Raup was only one of many who increasingly recognized these conflicts between what the theory predicts and what the evidence shows, leading to punctuated equilibrium today

You read it? It would have been nice if you had quoted it to begin with, but no matter, I found it on my own.

What Raup is discussing is only a part of what the ToE says. It is a discussion of the details and not a refutation of the theory. Strict creationists have always shown a lack of understanding about how science works. It is not done like religion. Scientists don't accept something on faith as a religious person has to. They examine, evaluate and argue based on what they know, reason and what evidence they have. What you have is Raup's opinion based on his analysis of the data. You don't hold revealed truth in your hand that destroys the science. What Raup thinks is that the evidence isn't clear cut support of natural selection as described in the theory. He clearly supports evolution. The theory we have now is not the theory that Darwin put forward over 150 years ago. A lot of what Darwin did is still there, but it has been revised. It is still a theory of evolution and not a submission to belief for belief's sake.

The fact remains that many strict creationists have used Raup's words out of context to show that evolution is failing when it isn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While better educated in *some* aspects of biology, the education is more directed to specifically human biology. This means that comparison with other species and thereby the basics of evolution are not part of the curriculum. Instead, the emphasis is more on how 'special' humans are, which can lead to more creationists ideas.

Correct, here is a link that gives the prereqs for med school at my old stomping ground. Though at least one general biology course is required an understanding of evolution is nowhere to be seen, instead an understanding of cellular biology is preferred:

Prerequisites

 

[Subduction Zone]

You read it? It would have been nice if you had quoted it to begin with, but no matter, I found it on my own.

What Raup is discussing is only a part of what the ToE says. It is a discussion of the details and not a refutation of the theory. Strict creationists have always shown a lack of understanding about how science works. It is not done like religion. Scientists don't accept something on faith as a religious person has to. They examine, evaluate and argue based on what they know, reason and what evidence they have. What you have is Raup's opinion based on his analysis of the data. You don't hold revealed truth in your hand that destroys the science. What Raup thinks is that the evidence isn't clear cut support of natural selection as described in the theory. He clearly supports evolution. The theory we have now is not the theory that Darwin put forward over 150 years ago. A lot of what Darwin did is still there, but it has been revised. It is still a theory of evolution and not a submission to belief for belief's sake.

The fact remains that many strict creationists have used Raup's words out of context to show that evolution is failing when it isn't.

I am new here too Dan, I quickly learned that this is his one favorite failed argument. I tried to explain his errors to him as have many others before. It does no good. He breaks this out with every new poster. I don't think that one has fallen for it yet.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was raised very strictly atheist, and remained so for several decades, accepting Darwinism as taught in school. I visited the Chicago Field museum (of Sue the T Rex fame) many times while Raup was the curator, so I was very much interested in his controversial stance.

He passed away recently but contributed a lot to our understanding of Natural History and problems with classical Darwinism, to the point that many Darwinists now feel obliged to ad 'Neo..' to make the distinction

So quoting his very influential position is hardly some sort of 'devious strategy'! It's a shame when people have to resort to ad hominem here, there are plenty forums where people just throw insults back and forth and it's just boring. This forum has usually been a little more above that

I think most like yourself are perfectly honest intelligent people that are capable of an interesting substantive discussion without resorting to this.

There is an ignore button for the rest!

I don't see Raup has having a controversial stance. He was a scientist doing what he was supposed to.

Misquoting it is part of a strategy that I've seen repeated with strict creationists ad nauseam. It may be that you chose Raup independently, and I hope you have, but other creationists just repeat the same quote mining that has been fed to them.

Neodarwinism reflects the revision of the theory adding the work in genetics by Mendel and the efforts of population biologists like Fisher, Wright and Haldane among many others so that we can know if one is talking about Darwin's original work or the "new synthesis".

I'm not resorting to ad hominem. I'm giving my evaluation of the evidence. That it doesn't favor strict creationists is based on the evidence and not my opinion of strict creationist dogma. It is not ad hominem to call a thief a thief anymore than it is to call strict creationists on the low tactics they use to promote their beliefs. I think you should be admonishing them for promoting false witness, but that never happens.