arteteco @arteteco@qoto.org

@namark

I hope I'm getting your point, but I'm not sure.

The two questions you are presenting cannot be separated, IMO.

This could work for a theory which is valid without the time dimension, but evolution isn't. It's bound to time in a inextricable way, and it is about how things came to be what they are.

You can't really talk about it in a non-historical way (you may abstract it in a hypothetical mathematical way, but you'll still have to use the passing of time for it to have sense, like in a game theory set)

Much of the evidence we have is indirect (even though we have some recent observable ones, and mathematical ones), but that doesn't change much as we have a ton of different evidences from different fields and all agree (geology, paleontology, molecular biology, ecology...). It's very, very rigorous, and only one piece out of place could make the entire theory collapse (like the famous rabbit in the precambrian =D )

@realcaseyrollins So you don't have like a proof, is just "likely"?

I don't see any reason for google to censor this contents, they basically want to get you what you are looking for. If you have evidence, I'll surely change my mind, but frankly it was also beside the scope of my very quick and dirty 5 minutes research =D

If for you 50/50 is a balanced representation of a theory for which we have a basically unanimous scientific consensus, that is another kind of problem. It's like saying that we should have 50/50 on the existence of cells.

@namark @freemo

I don't think any evolutionist would try to deny that either drift, selection or even mutation can happen at very different rates, even quite fast, depending on the organism, as we measure "time" by generation. Those examples are often used to illustrate the basics of evolution, such as the biston bitularia case, the flu rapid evolution and so on.

BUT, especially to explain very complex stuff like the structure of the eyes, how life came to be the way it is and such you have to put evolution into a geological time perspective.

@Canageek@cybre.space Maybe it's something in the way you say it, or you give that kind of impression of you?

If you know people find you self deprecating you could ask them why they assume so

@Canageek@cybre.space Ah, I think I'm starting to understand. But why "I don't know whether X finds me attractive" wouldn't work?

@Canageek@cybre.space
How about "I don't think that person finds me attractive"? Doesn't sound self deprecating to me.

@Canageek@cybre.space you are looking for a way to say that you don't think you are sexually attractive without sounding self-deprecating, am I understanding correctly?

@namark

You can't really grasp what's happening now or it's going to happen in the near future if you don't understand what we know about evolution of life as a whole.

Mechanics may be similar but you need to frame them in the correct time span to have an understanding of them, and that is basically a geological time scale

@freemo

@realcaseyrollins how do you know different languages of youtube have different algorithms and that that is the reason of the difference in the number of pro-against in the results?

Also, what do you mean by "more balanced"? Compared to what?

@namark @freemo
I'm not sure what you mean here. By evolutionary history you mean history of evolutionary theory? What problem could arise here?

@realcaseyrollins Are you being ironic? I think it's just that those videos are more seen, or more abundant

@johnlitt of course it's not scientific, it's alright, I was just curious to see in different languages how much of resistance evolutionary theory encounters, so in a sense I'm more interested in the stuff people click the most anyway =)

@johnlitt Yep, same results

@johnlitt what did you search for? Theory of evolution, and checked the first 20 results, as I did?

@johnlitt what were your results?

@johnlitt Are you saying this because you found different results?

@johnlitt Hi, still same results: 4 against evolution in English, 9 in Italian.

@freemo We do what we can. Like a STEM Instance!
Btw, if you good communicators and shows about it, please link, I'm starting to get interested in volunteering for this kind stuff and is very difficult to make evolution interesting (since I don't know how to find eye candy stuff to show kids!)

@Ytrezar @freemo

The "science is too complicated" is dangerous, but the worst is "science is boring", and "science is done by scientists".

We have a common public acceptance of stuff that would have blown the mind of people 500 years ago, like germs, cells theory, DNA. Against evolutionary theory is the active force of religions, I'd say, more than just the passive "yeah no, too complicated". That's why I think that we need more active force in the explanation of this ideas.

my two cents though.

@freemo There is that, too. I still think that more communicators, especially in high school and with kids, can do a great deal of difference. In Italy the school system is not really good, frankly.

Once they are grown up, at least that 15% of people who are not sure should be able to easily access good quality information and make up their mind.

Jeovah's witnesses here knock at doors and stop you in the streets, while the highest level of communication of many researchers I know is having a laugh about how we share a common ancestors with bananas when drunk, while trying to write the phylogenetic tree on the dusty windshield of a car =D