I can only think for now that I haven't been clear.
Not sure I follow the actual issue you have.
Is the issue that different researchers use different markers?
Or is it that you think garde school level is wrong somehow?
Seems like different issues and I think we might miss each others point of we keep jumping from one to the other. I'll treat them differently for now.
Let's return to your other statement, "evolution is an explanation...nothing more, nothing less."
I presume since you wrote it that you agree with it?
I have tried to show how evolution *as an explanation* is overly simplified in order to make it easy to understand...grade school level.
The problem is when so VERY many grab that grade school level overly simplified explanation and use it to justify their position, particularly when challenging alternate positions...as if they hold the *only,
totally factual, unassailable* valid explanation...when clearly that explanation is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and cannot be *totally* factual if there are known cases that don't fit neatly within the rules.
It isn't at all about negating evolution, it is about putting belief in evolution (or any belief really)...especially at the grade school level...into a proper perspective in relation to other belief systems. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think we both agree that: evolution is the process of organisms changing their genetic structure between generations until they have diverged so much from their original DNA that their offspring can no longer procreate. And that's a good rule of thumb for defining species.
I really don't feel like going off on a tangent...but by far the greater number of "chang(es)" to "genetic structure" result in disease like cancer, not some evolutionary leap forward.
Further, I consider biology a very wide field of study and include every organism between mammals and bacteria. The later for instance don't sex it up like we do, they divide. So it's natural that there are different forces in play. Experts on their specific fields would know more about the specifics of species. I'm sure, and I hope, that there are even scientist that challenge the theory all together or in parts, either because their crazy or because they are exploring new ways of thinking. It's all good and natural. Challenges aren't defeats for the theory however if that is the problem you see here.
Agreed, and it is incumbent on "experts" to know the details...but the details don't seem to make it out into the general public, not when I routinely hear highly educated people spout off the simplified version...even when in a deep discussion of the matter that has moved far beyond the surface level...they continue to revert to old established dogma.
On how grade schools teach. This is tricky for me to respond to since you I think you are making vast generalisations. Are we saying evolution is thought the same in the world, in the US or even in states? I can't find a specific account on how you think it is thought.
I was taught as mentioned above: a process that results in diver(g)ing species. So:
How is "a process that results in diver(g)ing species" not fact?
Seriously? I mean is this an attempt to oversimplify what is already oversimplified?
I understand...you can't teach junior high students grad school level genetics and expect them to retain it...no problem. But how many junior high students go on to wage verbal war with those who disagree with them about details of the Civil War...for example? There may be a handful, but I would think that Civil War buffs would have the details sorted before making so bold a claim as to stand by grade school teaching as unassailable "fact." Not so when it comes to evolution. It has become a dogmatic teaching for which those who challenge become anathema, equivalent to an heretic or infidel.
I agree that "a process that results in diver(g)ing species" is a working model, and I agree that it's a theory if you mean as in "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."
Herein lies the problem: First you say it is "a working model" with "
broad, natural explanation." Then immediately follow with implication that this is "concise, coherent, systematic, predictive and broadly applicable," when so very often in the details the broad application falls short. It cannot be both "broad" and "concise." It works...generally. There are times when it doesn't work as described. Working generally is fine, as long as one doesn't build a dogma out of it.
Do you know anything about cars? Hoping you do, would you use a manual and tools for a Cadillac to fix a Mazda?
Here it seems like you're explaining the differences between higher and lower understanding of subjects, which I agree with. But I'm guessing you're saying something about challenges that undermines grade school understanding?
So, do I think you have mentioned anything that challenges "a process that results in diverting species"? No.
I am speaking of clinging dogmatically to a level of understanding that is not as presented. It cannot be "true" if at moments it is not true. It cannot be "fact" if at moments it is not fact. Those who hold to it as unassailable are treating it no different in substance than a religious text. Which comes around eventually to pots calling kettles black, in diametric opposition to the stated aims of science.
I'm curious to find where you think there is an issue!
If that doesn't sort it out, I don't know how better to explain at this time.
