Darwin’s Finch has corrected this assertion many times.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12454246
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9446482
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5803899
People who reject the theory of evolution are generally dumbasses. People who misuse antibiotics are generally dumbasses. I’m sure many dumbasses belong to both groups–but there’s probably no cause & effect relationship between those beliefs. In fact, the concept of “cause & effect” is also beyond the ken of most dumbasses…
From Texas, where Evolution is on the public school curriculum. Not Creationism or Intelligent Design–no matter what Governor Idiot said.
To me, the Shovel/Head treatment for teachers flouting the curriculum seems fitting. But ensuring there are enough PE sections that the coaches can be relieved from teaching other subjects sounds more humane.
I think you are going too far with religion. It seems to me that you are using creationism as a tool to attack religion in general by inserting the phrase “(and religion in general)” in your statement. I think you are forgetting that there are many religions out there, and not all religions are concerned with the origins of life. Furthermore, in the 21st century, creationism in the form of Intelligent Design is supported by certain individuals who reject the theory of evolution and start to look forward to some alternate explanation for the origin of the universe or the origin of mankind, to be specific. It is hard to define exactly who these individuals are. One can not simply say “religious fanatics” or “Fundamentalist Christians”. People who reject the theory of evolution, as the article in the first post states, are the students themselves.
Ha-ha. I was right all along. 
No, people who reject the theory of evolution are not dumbasses. They just do not understand the material intuitively. They know the facts. They see the facts. They just don’t accept the facts, because the facts just don’t “feel” right. To give an example, a math professor can demonstrate an example that involves the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. A student may see the fact and see through the logic, but won’t accept it as true until he does it himself or know qualitatively how the function is supposed to work and the function’s relationships of the variables.
Since this was your statement…
…no, you weren’t. Ha-ha. :rolleyes:
Same idea, though. Ha-ha. :rolleyes:
^ No, it’s just wrong.
Just so you know, I also said this (check the above posts on this page, if you don’t believe me):
I think you should be more specific when you say “wrong”. I have taken introductory Biology courses at Uni before, plus doing some reading on Wikipedia on those two subjects; I know the difference between macroevolution and microevolution just fine. What I mean is, macroevolution and microevolution are all part of evolution. Accepting one but not another is a fallacy, because they both help describe evolution. Don’t take my words literally. When I said macroevolution as the “extension of this concept”, I mean to say that macroevolution describes the changes of a population over greater periods of time, sometimes branching into a new species. Some people define macroevolution as changes above the species, while microevolution as changes at the species level. Clearly, the words of macroevolution and microevolution can be used loosely, and people are not as nit-picky as you are when it comes to describing evolution. They are both evolution. If you want to say that I am completely “wrong”, then please be specific on where you perceive that I was “wrong”; otherwise, I will assume that you mean to say that I am in no way correct about this issue, and I know nothing about Biology. As far as I can tell, it seems that you imply this.
In Chemistry, I once had a professor who didn’t know an arcane IUPAC rule on chemical nomenclature. Does that mean we should discredit that professor entirely? Of course not! It just means that we wouldn’t be tested on it. 
My point is, I do understand there is a time and place when specific distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is needed, but in a general description about those two terms, just call them ‘evolution’ or define it simplest way possible. *
*Note: The simplest way is not always the best way.
No, that’s just evolution.
Macroevolution isn’t about “extrapolating” an “idea” and it’s still just evolution since we don’t know if macroevolution has taken place regardless if any amount of time has been lengthened.
Of course as you are probably aware, I wouldn’t have bothered bringing this up if you hadn’t mocked someone else for being wrong when you yourself got it wrong.
Not seeing your point.
Technically speaking, a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection. Natural selection is a part of evolution. So, you’ve got “wrong” too. However, I would use the term “incorrect”, to be specific.
I do not think “wrong” is the right terminology. “Inaccurate” or “imprecise” would be better terminology. “Wrong” can have many connotations, including the possibility of one being morally or ethically wrong. This is not an ethical or moral debate, so I refrain using the term, “wrong”.
I may have made a mistake of describing macroevolution and microevolution inaccurately or imprecisely, but that does NOT mean I do not understand the concepts. I will tell you the reason why I mocked Der Trihs. The reason why I mocked Der Trihs was that I resented his or her annoying anti-religion sentiments. So, I mocked him or her to show him or her a lesson or two. Now, you come along and actually help me, because the sources that you provide actually say explicitly that Der Trihs’ statement that microevolution and macroevolution is irreligious is incorrect. OK, maybe I shouldn’t have made up my own incorrect definitions of microevolution and macroevolution, and I admit that. However, I think Der Trihs’ claim that microevolution and macroevolution and their relationship to religion stems from the his or her very consistent anti-religion sentiments, and I think that those anti-religion sentiments are disturbing, unsupported, and irrational. I am very wary of hatred as a form of rational behavior, no matter what the object of hatred is.
Ethically speaking, I may have been wrong, since perhaps, I should respect Der Trihs’ anti-religion sentiments, no matter how irrational they can be. Giving people respect and kindness is considered good ethical behavior.
Wrong. That’s evolution. It doesn’t have to occur via natural selection. Genetic drift is one among other ways it can occur.
Wrong. You have forgotten gene flow.
Natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow are the mechanisms that cause changes in allele frequencies over time.
I wasn’t wrong and I didn’t forget anything. I said genetic drift is one “among other ways.”
I’m not following you. We just had the following conversation:
You say that I was wrong, and that a a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection, not evolution. When I state that that’s wrong, it is evolution and not natural selection, you state I’m wrong, yet then go on to say I forgot something just because I didn’t include everything.
How can you say I forgot gene flow when you just got done saying that “a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection and I was wrong to sat it was evolution?”
BTW, there are other mechanisms also.
All right. Just tell me one thing.
Is the following article published by Nature accurate in terms of its conception that natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift are the mechanisms that cause changes in allele frequencies over time? In your opinion, should it be corrected to reflect “other” mechanisms that cause changes in allele frequencies over time, and what exactly are those “other” mechanisms in your words? If there are truly “other” mechanisms besides genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection, then should the Nature article be discredited as false in your opinion or “wrong” in your words?
All right? I asked you a question in my last post. Care to answer it?
The answer is that we are all imprecise, and we should acknowledge our own imprecisions. Imprecisions in facts do not necessarily give one the right to irrationally and negatively target religion, as someone like Der Trihs so willfully does. Someone like Der Trihs should quit attacking religions by using creationism and religious fanaticism as reasons for one’s own agenda and sentiments.
Now, you answer mine.
No, no it wouldn’t. Evolution is
: a change in the frequency of alleles over generations is therefore evolution. This evolution has occurred through natural selection. In other words, natural selection is the process, but evolution is the result.
^ You didn’t answer my question and this has nothing to do with Der Trihs. In case you didn’t notice, I didn’t bother entertaining your comments about Der Trihs in post #69 as IMHO isn’t the place for this. I’m getting the feeling you know I wasn’t wrong when I corrected your assertion that “a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection” and not evolution and that this has become more about your ego. That, and the fact that you’re answering a question without answering signals to me that I should be done here. Have a good one.
I think you are concerned with your ego as well. Have a good one.