• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution: the Facts.

Dr Adequate said:
Well, the SkepticWiki has started doing that too, as in:

Principles of Science.

There's some work that needs doing there, but at least it's a start.
Click to expand...

Excellent, I'll link through to that for people who want an in-depth look at the question.

Dr Adequate said:
Would anyone like to improve it? I would myself, only I'm busy working on an article about Archaeopteryx.
Click to expand...

Looks like the science explanation just needs a summary....

Are you putting the wee birdie on SW? My kids' favourite!
 
arthwollipot said:
Isn't it a weird feeling when you discover you've been pronouncing a word wrong forever?
Click to expand...

Yes... I do feel smart knowing how to correctly pronounce words like hegemony and megalomaniac-- I seem to accent the wrong syllable when left to my own devices... and I'm sure I look tourettic playing the sound for archaeopteryx and repeating it over and over. I do affirm that I can correctly pronounce drosophila melanogaster as well, and I am thankful to yourdictionary.com for giving me a clue as to archaeopteryx.

arky-OP-ter-ix.
 
arthwollipot said:
Isn't it a weird feeling when you discover you've been pronouncing a word wrong forever?
Click to expand...

I do it all the time, even on simple names because I read them when I first see them incorrectly and if I never hear them pronounced correctly, I tend not to notice I'm pronouncing it wrong. It's sometimes only when I do a Net search that I discover my error as with Johnathan Sarfati who I'd been calling Safarti for several years.

Even worse is when I use a word incorrectly as I did with 'alacrity' for years.
 
sar-co-GIP-ter-eye

No. Sarcopterygii

sar-cop-ter-YDGE-ee-eye

See? I just did it myself!

The key to Greek is that you have to pronounce both "i"s. In words of five syllables or more, the emphasis is usually on the third last syllable.
 
Out of interest articulett - how were you pronouncing Archaeopteryx? I often end up pronouncing things badly as a result of only having read about them, but seem to have got away with that one. Come to think of it the childhood book I initially picked it up from probably had a pronunciation guide...
 
Big Les said:
Out of interest articulett - how were you pronouncing Archaeopteryx? I often end up pronouncing things badly as a result of only having read about them, but seem to have got away with that one. Come to think of it the childhood book I initially picked it up from probably had a pronunciation guide...
Click to expand...

Well, mostly I just read it, and my brain just knew what it was from the look... but I think I emphasized the Pter (as in pterodactyl-- since it looks like one) rather than the OP. But even the archae was weird... I knew it was probably "arky" (rhymes with snarky)... but archaea is pronounced ar-KAY-uh... And I wasn't sure if teryx should beTERicks or "trix". I don't think I ventured saying the word out loud until I knew it.

In the UK they often emphasize different syllables in words--like controversy.
I remember asking a teacher in 3rd grade what determine meant-- I pronounced it deter (rhymes with meter) - mine. She responded "determine means..." and as soon as I heard the word I realized that I knew what it meant... I just hadn't recognized it in print. I re-tell this incident realizing it won't translate at all if, in the UK, you pronounce determine the way I mispronounced it.

I dated a French Canadian who pronounced rhinoceros so oddly that it took me a while to understand him. I wonder if he thought the same of my pronunciation?
 
arthwollipot said:
It's been my experience that all evolution-deniers do not understand evolution.
Click to expand...

I have never, ever once, spoken with a creationist or ID person that has bothered to read Darwin. Most I've come across cannot even quote a book on the subject.

M
 
fishkr said:
I have never, ever once, spoken with a creationist or ID person that has bothered to read Darwin. Most I've come across cannot even quote a book on the subject.

M
Click to expand...

They do all seem to have read the same book with the same strawman, pecadillos, insincere questions. Science always uncovers more and more. Creationism just stays the same. You can tell a creationist by their utter lack of curiosity on current developments--they get too hung up the gaps or whatever it is that makes god seem real.
 
Gaps in the fossil record. Missing link. Impossible complexity.

This post began, I think by proposing some kind of Evo link database? As a lay person, what I find most usefull for understanding evolution and having confidence in it is having enough collateral understanding to see the linkages of knowledge from other disciplines.

Of the listed items, take for example earth-aging, which was helped along by the discovery of atomic fission and learning that earth's core is still hot because of radioactive decay - this is an example of how discoveries in physics (which are very hard, even for a Creationist, to argue with) may reinforce Darwin.

If you wan't to persuade about Evolution the process is made more difficult if the persuadee (?) lacks a basic science background, so that perhaps connecting with far-flung consilient knowledge might be just as usefull as talking about the chimpanzee genome.

M
 
fishkr said:
I have never, ever once, spoken with a creationist or ID person that has bothered to read Darwin.
Click to expand...
I think your criticism is misplaced. After all, most evolutionists have never read Darwin either.

Why would they? He was the first person to write about the theory of evolution. Science progresses, it gets better and better, so we should want to read the last person to write about evolution, not the first.

Darwin wrote his book a hundred and fifty years ago. He knew nothing about genetics and DNA, and he didn't know about all the excellent fossils recovered from the fossil record since his time. If someone asked me for the best proof of the theory of evolution, then about 90% of what I'd say would be stuff that Darwin never heard of.

I've read Darwin, 'cos I'm interested in the history of science, and because it's interesting to watch a genius figure things out. But I wouldn't recommend his book to someone who was interested in biology as we now understand it.

Most I've come across cannot even quote a book on the subject.
Click to expand...
Now you're talking sense. It's fine if they don't read Darwin, but most of 'em have also apparently missed out on the sort of science which can be found in basic textbooks about biology which I learnt in school as a teenager.
 
fishkr said:
Gaps in the fossil record. Missing link. Impossible complexity.
Click to expand...

[swiki]Intermediate Forms[/swiki]

[swiki]Intermediate Forms Between Classes[/swiki]

[swiki]Irreducible Complexity[/swiki]

Of the listed items, take for example earth-aging, which was helped along by the discovery of atomic fission and learning that earth's core is still hot because of radioactive decay - this is an example of how discoveries in physics (which are very hard, even for a Creationist, to argue with) may reinforce Darwin.
Click to expand...
The SkepticWiki is very, very weak on geology, and I'd appeal to people to write some articles on the subject, except that bitter experience has taught me that no-one will do anything, they'll just sit on their fat skeptical arses until I do it.

Since "The Atheist" started this thread, has anyone done anything except me?

Watch out for my upcoming article on Archaeopteryx --- I'd nearly finished it, and then it was destroyed by a power cut, so I'm writing it again.

* sighs *
 
Last edited:
fishkr said:
I have never, ever once, spoken with a creationist or ID person that has bothered to read Darwin. Most I've come across cannot even quote a book on the subject.
Click to expand...

Dr Adequate said:
I think your criticism is misplaced. After all, most evolutionists have never read Darwin either.
Click to expand...

I for one will admit to having never read Origin or any other of Darwins writings beyond the odd quote here and there. I'd be so bold to suggest one could get a fairly comprehensive overview of evolutionary theory just by reading Creationist claims and then investigating what the science actually has to say on the subject without ever once reading Darwin, Mayr, Dobzhanski or Futayma.

Dr Adequate said:
The SkepticWiki is very, very weak on geology, and I'd appeal to people to write some articles on the subject, except that bitter experience has taught me that no-one will do anything, they'll just sit on their fat skeptical arses until I do it.

Since "The Atheist" started this thread, has anyone done anything except me?
Click to expand...

I posted a number of links on the first page of the thread as well as an explanation of how common phrases are used differently than taxonomic names. I guess I can create an account and see what I can add. Perhaps we should talk to Tricky about doing some of the geology?
 
Dr Adequate said:
[swiki]Intermediate Forms[/swiki]

[swiki]Intermediate Forms Between Classes[/swiki]

[swiki]Irreducible Complexity[/swiki]

The SkepticWiki is very, very weak on geology, and I'd appeal to people to write some articles on the subject, except that bitter experience has taught me that no-one will do anything, they'll just sit on their fat skeptical arses until I do it.

Since "The Atheist" started this thread, has anyone done anything except me?

Watch out for my upcoming article on Archaeopteryx --- I'd nearly finished it, and then it was destroyed by a power cut, so I'm writing it again.

* sighs *
Click to expand...

Your writing is kind of intimidating...
I feel like my entries would be so much less "scholarly" in comparison. I bet if you gave specific posters who write well specific topics you'd like to see them write about (or cut and paste from their posts about), you'd get a better response.
 
fishkr said:
Gaps in the fossil record. Missing link. Impossible complexity.

This post began, I think by proposing some kind of Evo link database? As a lay person, what I find most usefull for understanding evolution and having confidence in it is having enough collateral understanding to see the linkages of knowledge from other disciplines.

Of the listed items, take for example earth-aging, which was helped along by the discovery of atomic fission and learning that earth's core is still hot because of radioactive decay - this is an example of how discoveries in physics (which are very hard, even for a Creationist, to argue with) may reinforce Darwin.

If you wan't to persuade about Evolution the process is made more difficult if the persuadee (?) lacks a basic science background, so that perhaps connecting with far-flung consilient knowledge might be just as usefull as talking about the chimpanzee genome.

M
Click to expand...

Cheers.

That's really why I'm trying to write it myself - because I'm not a scientist and can't write in scientific language.

I'm hoping that Dr A, US and a couple of others who have given the info out will make sure that I don't get any facts wrong, and as a layman, I'd obviously appreciate your input as to whether it looks right from that layman's perspective.

Dr Adequate said:
Since "The Atheist" started this thread, has anyone done anything except me?
Click to expand...

Wel, I'm pleased to see that Unrepentant's modesty hasn't prevented him from telling you that he has done a bit of work, too.

It's all proceeding to plan at this stage - let the boffins create the work, I translate it into idiot-speak and gain all the kudos, while you backroom chaps get on with the next project.

Compare public recognition of Enola Gay and J Robert Oppenheimer.

Dr Adequate said:
Watch out for my upcoming article on Archaeopteryx --- I'd nearly finished it, and then it was destroyed by a power cut, so I'm writing it again.

* sighs *
Click to expand...

This why I hate women. Women virtually never have that trouble, they save after every page.

UnrepentantSinner said:
I posted a number of links on the first page of the thread as well as an explanation of how common phrases are used differently than taxonomic names. I guess I can create an account and see what I can add. Perhaps we should talk to Tricky about doing some of the geology?
Click to expand...

Great plan on both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom