@jammycakes you may be tickled to know that when I just googled “error bars radiometric dating,” your blog post is the number two hit:
3 Likes
I saw a doctor friend on Goodreads throw the word “ateleology” around.
1 Like
@LM77 (or others of a Reformed bent)
I’m hoping you can fix/improve/approve “federal headship.”
Federal headship is a theological idea that presents Adam as the federal head, or representative, of all humanity. So, when he chose to sin, it resulted in the rest of the human race being condemned as sinful. Jesus came as the second Adam, a new representative of humanity, and his sinless life and perfect sacrifice on the cross resulted in humanity being declared righteous. This idea comes from Romans 5, where Paul explains that sin came into the world through one man and death through sin (verse 12). Then Paul explains that just as Adam’s sin led to condemnation for all humanity, Jesus’ one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all humanity (verse 18). In 1 Corinthians 15:22 Paul presents a similar idea, saying that just as everyone dies “in Adam,” everyone will be made alive “in Christ.” Many people believe federal headship requires a historical Adam and Eve. (See original sin, fall of humanity.)
1 Like
I learned that if you want to insist something is ateleological but also want to employ language that implies a goal, target state, or intended function, you can use the word teleonomy.
1 Like
Speciation is an event that splits a lineage and produces two or more distinct species, resulting in a new branch (or branches) on a phylogenetic tree. Often this occurs when a group within a species separates from other members of its species and adapts to a different ecological niche. Separate species are typically characterized by reproductive isolation, meaning the members of the two species do not interbreed. This could be because genetic, behavioral, or physical differences interfere with successful mating. Members of two different species may become reproductively isolated because of differences in courtship rituals, incompatible genitalia or gametes, zygotes that do not survive, or sterile offspring. When two groups from the same species become geographically isolated from each other for many generations, they often evolve sufficiently distinctive traits to be classified as separate species. If the two species become reunited after many generations, the differences between them may not be enough for reproductive isolation to occur, and interbreeding between the two species will produce hybrids.
Now that you mention it, I believe she used that word also. I should have been paying more attention.
Hi Christy,
It seems you were extremely thorough so I just aimed for one thing that I have expertise on: pseudogenes! I do have a comment on this particular part of the entry:
“Pseudogenes that originate by duplication are homologous to an ancestral gene. That is to say, they are found in corresponding places in the genomes of the two related organisms.”
I find this phrasing a bit confusing. It sounds like you’re describing paralogs in the first sentence: genes that are homologous due to duplication of a single ancestral gene in a single individual, with both genes being inherited in descendant species. But then it sounds like you’re describing orthologs in the second sentence: a gene in one species that is homologous to a gene in another species due to both inheriting it from a common ancestor. Given the patterns of formation and inheritance, orthologs are typically found in highly similar locations in the genome, whereas paralogs often aren’t.
The shared mutations and nested hierarchies bit is great! Some of the most convincing evidence of evolution in my option.
Another great thing about pseudogenes is that they point to former anatomical and physiological traits in ancestors, such as tooth pseudogenes in toothless vertebrates, claw keratin pseudogenes in snakes, chitinase pseudogenes in herbivorous and carnivorous mammals, etc.
Hope that was at least moderately useful! 
Okay, my PhD advisor would be ashamed if I didn’t take a stab at phylogenetic tree too…
A phylogenetic tree, or phylogeny, is a graphical representation of the evolutionary relationships between three or more species. Specifically, it depicts the ancestor and descendant relationships between living and/or extinct species and hypothetical ancestral lineages, ultimately culminating in a common ancestor for all of the species represented in the phylogeny. Phylogenies are often referred to as “trees” because the resulting diagram is very similar to that of a living tree. The tips or “leaves” correspond to living and/or extinct species, “branches” represent lineages of species that have evolved over time, “nodes” represent hypothetical ancestral species that bifurcate into two descendant lineages (i.e., speciation), and the “root” of the tree represents the common ancestor of all species represented in the phylogeny. Phylogenetic trees are reconstructed with statistical methods utilizing multiple traits of species, especially anatomy, DNA and amino acids.
More could be added (e.g., comments about branch lengths, use for reconstructing ancestors, etc.) but hopefully that’s useful for a first pass!
2 Likes
“abiogenesis” is an important term for contrast with evolution. Evolution is NOT about the origin of life.
“theory” should point to the disambiguation between common usage and the distinction between “scientific theory” and “hypothesis.”
“science” should also be there, even if it just points to other definitions you have. It is not enough just to explain the more technical terms if you want to address the misunderstandings connected to an indoctrination in creationism. In particular you need to explain why “creation science” isn’t – and an explanation is likely to involve a reference to the scientific method and how it differs from rhetoric.
“Christianity” How can you get anywhere if they have Christianity defined as creationism? Isn’t it important to remind people that the majority of Christianity in the world supports evolution?
hope I did not upset the system by adding to it
I was trying to talk about orthologs in both. (Besides, don’t paralogs apply only when you are comparing different copies of the same genome, not when you are comparing an ancestral genome with a descendant’s genome?) My issue is that, as I understand it, pseudogenes originate by either duplication or retrotransposition, but I didn’t want to get into retrotransposition, because those pseudogenes are not the ones that end up in homologous locations and aren’t as useful evidence for evolution. I just wanted to talk about the pseudogenes that arise as a result of transcription errors (mutations, insertions, deletions, misplaced stop codons, or frameshifts) during the gene duplication process. Not an extra copy of a gene, a wrongly copied of a gene. “Duplication” was the word used in almost all the resources I checked out. If you could suggest an alternate wording that makes it clearer, I could edit it.
Wonderful! I love this hive mind stuff. If I made it slightly more high-school reading level and added a couple cross-references to other entries as I have done below, would it still be right? (I mean, I know what bifurcate means, and I think it is an awesome word, but the average 14 year old, maybe not…) Also if I change hypothetical to proposed, is that wrong? Lots of creationist-minded kids hear hypothetical and think “made up.” Aren’t the species on the tree usually all known species we have fossils for, or are they sometimes constructed based on other evidence?
A phylogenetic tree , or phylogeny, is a graphical representation of the evolutionary relationships between three or more species. Specifically, it depicts the ancestor and descendant relationships and lineages for living and/or extinct species, ultimately ending in a common ancestor for all of the species at the base of the diagram. Phylogenies are often referred to as “trees” because the resulting diagram has the shape of a tree or bush. The “leaves” correspond to the most recent living and/or extinct species, “branches” represent lineages of species evolving over time, “forks” where the branches split are nodes that represent speciation events, and the “trunk” of the tree represents the lineage of the common ancestor of all species represented in the phylogeny, the species at the “foot” of the tree. Scientists analyze multiple traits of the related species, including comparative anatomy and DNA and amino acids, and then construct phylogenetic trees using statistical methods. They also use scientific dating methods to compare the ages of fossils. (See nested hierarchy, common descent, divergent evolution.)
It’s just a copy of my main document, so anyone can add suggestions.
Is this correct? How would you relate it to creationist concerns or misrepresentations about the reliability of radiometric dating?
Error bar is usually a T-shaped bar on a graph that shows the range of built-in uncertainty represented by the data. Error bars are based on statistical calculations that tell something about the spread of the data; the explicit meaning for a specific graph’s error bars is shown in a key with the graph. For example, error bars can tell you how precise a measurement is, or a range of the mean value for a population based on the mean of a sample. Scientific papers that present statistical data from experiments are usually expected to include error bars on graphs.
Inspiration refers to the Christian doctrine that the Bible is “God-breathed” (1 Timothy 3:16). People have different ideas about exactly what inspiration means and how inspiration works, but affirming the inspiration of Scripture generally means believing that the human authors were supernaturally guided to express what God intended them to express, and therefore their writings are rightfully considered the word of God. (See special revelation.) Among Christians, there is a range of beliefs about the nature of God’s influence on the writing of Scripture. On one extreme, dictation theory sees the authors as passively recording what God told them to say. Verbal plenary inspiration moves away from pure dictation, but still sees the choice of every word in the original documents as intentionally guided by God. Others think that God inspired the concepts or thoughts the authors are communicating, but the specific words and images they use to communicate are their own and may reflect their human personalities and worldviews. On the other end of the spectrum, some Christians believe that what God intends to communicate through Scripture must be sorted out from the human ideas of the authors, which might be wrong or mistaken. Still other Christians think that different parts of Scripture reflect different levels of inspiration, drawing a distinction between texts where the authors explicitly claim to be speaking for God or recording the words of Jesus, and texts where they are more clearly recording their own human thoughts, feelings, observations, or advice. In any case, a person’s beliefs about inspiration often affects whether they find a specific interpretation of a Scripture passage acceptable. (See inerrancy, hermeneutics, exegesis.)
2 Likes
Include the word “biblical” and the way it is weaponised. For instance, YEC refers to “biblical creation” as the slam-dunk conversation closer. The deployment of the word “biblical” makes a claim of unimpeachable, inerrant, infallible, God-given “Truth”. Dare to question it and one is immediately “unbiblical” and therefore sub-Christian.
“Biblical” has become the adjective of self-arrogance. “I am quoting the Bible; the Bible is right; therefore I am right; therefore you are wrong, because you are against God’s Bible.”
(As a Bible-loving Christian I now have an instinctive, almost Pavlovian, aversion to the word “biblical”!)
1 Like
Interesting idea, but I’m not sure how one would write such an entry, since it doesn’t seem to be “how to use this word correctly” as “how not to use this word.”
It’s not so much about how we should use it; more about being alert to its misuse in things we read or hear.
Falsifiability, a term coined by philosopher of science Karl Popper, refers to the capacity for a proposition, hypothesis or theory to be proven wrong. The scientific method produces falsifiable results. Theories or hypotheses that cannot be falsified are generally considered unscientific. Recently, some scientists in highly theoretical fields have questioned this criterion, claiming that some areas of science may have reached the limits of what is empirically testable. Testing the predictions of string theory, for example, would require experiments that are not possible given the limitations of testing equipment. Multiverse theory also fails the falsifiability test. (See scientific theory, empirical evidence, pseudoscience.)
Come on now, I can’t believe none of you science-y types have any quibbles with this stuff that I am just throwing together in my liberal arts ignorance.
I WELCOME ALL CRITIQUES AND CORRECTIONS. Please fuss about stuff.
Scientific method refers to the established process for scientific investigation and research. Scientists start with a question and then propose a predicted answer to the question that they can test, a hypothesis. They make observations (which sometimes involves designing and performing tests and experiments) and they collect empirical evidence. They evaluate all the evidence to see whether it supports or disproves their hypothesis, and then they make inferences about the meaning of the evidence and form a conclusion. They submit their conclusions to peer review and publish them. Other scientists can then examine their methods and empirical evidence to see if they come to the same conclusions. When many scientists have made similar observations, obtained similar results from empirical testing, and have reached similar conclusions, the hypothesis is considered well-supported and becomes part of the scientific consensus. (See pseudoscience, falsifiability, operational science, historical science.)
1 Like