Evolution: The common misconceptions.

[cuddly_tomato]

Spoiler

Irreducible complexity is usually brought up with ID more then evolution, but i know it's a common "problem" the have. The best way to shut them up (if they're claiming that ID is a scientific theory) is to ask them for a test to prove ID. ID has no proof and is wholly founded as nothing more then a series of attacks on evolution. That and the wedge document basically proves that ID was created to do nothing more then force religion back into schools.

Intelligent design sounds very good and plausable, right up until the point where you realise that whatever designed humans can't have been very intelligent. Also, I disagree with you on transitionals. I don't think transitionals exist simply because I don't really think that species exist. The difference between a pelycosaur and a human is just a few meteorite impacts, the odd ice age, some warm spells, and shed-loads of time.

However, the perfection and beauty of nature does lead many to conclude that there is far more too it than just a random chemical reaction which hasn't finished its process yet, that includes myself.

EDIT: I am curious. I understand how you would get pissed when you see creationists trying to get their stuff into science text books, but what about the people who just quietly believe that stuff?

What are you talking about? It doesn't sound plausible at all, based solely on the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to argue for it. The reason people get mad when you say evolution is a lie is because it is SCIENCE. It has been proven, FFS, stop moronically remaining willfully ignorant.

Uhm... K.

I was being ironic, as you might have been able to pick up on had you made it past the first comma in my post. But if the effort of reading that far was too great for you, I really can't hold you responsible for that.

That aside, the fact evolution takes place at all is nothing short of a miracle. If people want to believe that it is guided my something more deliberate than random mutations then I really don't see a whole lot of evidence against that. And no, "you can't prove it's true" doesn't constitute proof.

I don't care if you are god bashing or not, I was commenting on the first part of that sentence.

Ohh I never god bash, I have the utmost respect for the beliefs of others whether I agree with them or not. I can understand perfectly why someone thinks something like intelligent design takes place. Although I object to it being treated as science, because there is no method of testing it or obtaining control results, the notion that evolution isn't just a constant random sequence of events is pretty reasonable. I believe this myself, although I don't believe in intelligent design. I really don't think there is some kind of overall 'plan', but I see plenty that tells me that something or other, beyond our understanding or comprehension, smiles upon nature.

Spoiler

Irreducible complexity is usually brought up with ID more then evolution, but i know it's a common "problem" the have. The best way to shut them up (if they're claiming that ID is a scientific theory) is to ask them for a test to prove ID. ID has no proof and is wholly founded as nothing more then a series of attacks on evolution. That and the wedge document basically proves that ID was created to do nothing more then force religion back into schools.

Intelligent design sounds very good and plausable, right up until the point where you realise that whatever designed humans can't have been very intelligent. Also, I disagree with you on transitionals. I don't think transitionals exist simply because I don't really think that species exist. The difference between a pelycosaur and a human is just a few meteorite impacts, the odd ice age, some warm spells, and shed-loads of time.

However, the perfection and beauty of nature does lead many to conclude that there is far more too it than just a random chemical reaction which hasn't finished its process yet, that includes myself.

EDIT: I am curious. I understand how you would get pissed when you see creationists trying to get their stuff into science text books, but what about the people who just quietly believe that stuff?

Considering there are people that think gravity is caused by sin and that the sun is actually a lense of ice focusing god's light I'd have to say that your moderately scientifically illiterate ideas don't bother me much as long as you don't go trying to jam them into text books.

My "scientifically illiterate" ideas are part of who I am. I don't base all of my beliefs and actions on science, because there are a lot of things that science has nothing to do with.

 

[Zacharine]

Durrr, but if we come from apes, why are there still apes?!?

Because biologically speaking we ARE apes. One cannot outgrow ones ancestry.

Once a spinal column, always a vertebrata. Once a vertebrata with mammary glands and sweat glands, always a mammalia. Once a mammal with enlargened brain, developed stereoscopic vision with loss of smell sensitivity, always a primate. And so forth. We simply do not write all these things before Homo Sapiens, because it serves no practical purpose. But we are apes, just as both apes and fish are vertebrates. Most simply do not understand that an 'ape' refers not to a species of animal, but a member of Hominoidea superfamily, an entire categorical classification just like being called a 'vertebrate'.

 

[Jarc42]

As much as we all like to say "(insert religious group) are so ignorant!", that statement in of itself is kind of ignorant and definitely stereotyping them. Let?s try to at least understand their opinion and save the name calling for when they call us ignorant.

 

[Piecewise]

First off TL;DR
Since i didnt read that, this may be off topic anyway. I dislike when i say i believe in Evolution, people assume i hat God and i want to punch Jesus. I say,God can coexist with evolution.

It can, but not with a literal interpretation of genesis. And great heaping loads of historical inaccuracy exists within the rest of the bible, but thats not really the subject.

 

[Skeleon]

...the notion that evolution isn't just a constant random sequence of events is pretty reasonable.

That's not what the theory of evolution says, either.
The mutations are random, the selection isn't. It's defined by the environmental circumstances.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Irreducible complexity is usually brought up with ID more then evolution, but i know it's a common "problem" the have. The best way to shut them up (if they're claiming that ID is a scientific theory) is to ask them for a test to prove ID. ID has no proof and is wholly founded as nothing more then a series of attacks on evolution. That and the wedge document basically proves that ID was created to do nothing more then force religion back into schools.

Intelligent design sounds very good and plausable, right up until the point where you realise that whatever designed humans can't have been very intelligent. Also, I disagree with you on transitionals. I don't think transitionals exist simply because I don't really think that species exist. The difference between a pelycosaur and a human is just a few meteorite impacts, the odd ice age, some warm spells, and shed-loads of time.

However, the perfection and beauty of nature does lead many to conclude that there is far more too it than just a random chemical reaction which hasn't finished its process yet, that includes myself.

EDIT: I am curious. I understand how you would get pissed when you see creationists trying to get their stuff into science text books, but what about the people who just quietly believe that stuff?

What are you talking about? It doesn't sound plausible at all, based solely on the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to argue for it. The reason people get mad when you say evolution is a lie is because it is SCIENCE. It has been proven, FFS, stop moronically remaining willfully ignorant.

Uhm... K.

I was being ironic, as you might have been able to pick up on had you made it past the first comma in my post. But if the effort of reading that far was too great for you, I really can't hold you responsible for that.

That aside, the fact evolution takes place at all is nothing short of a miracle. If people want to believe that it is guided my something more deliberate than random mutations then I really don't see a whole lot of evidence against that. And no, "you can't prove it's true" doesn't constitute proof.

I don't care if you are god bashing or not, I was commenting on the first part of that sentence.

Ohh I never god bash, I have the utmost respect for the beliefs of others whether I agree with them or not. I can understand perfectly why someone thinks something like intelligent design takes place. Although I object to it being treated as science, because there is no method of testing it or obtaining control results, the notion that evolution isn't just a constant random sequence of events is pretty reasonable. I believe this myself, although I don't believe in intelligent design. I really don't think there is some kind of overall 'plan', but I see plenty that tells me that something or other, beyond our understanding or comprehension, smiles upon nature.

Please, tell me why you think that something guides evolution. If your answer is anything other than "I don't" please promptly learn and understand evolutionary theory.

If you want a forum exchange to be valuble then comment on the spirit of a post, rather than trying to use semantics to argue against a point the poster never made.

As for the answer to the question that you did ask, you may consider me a vitalist.

 

[Ultrajoe]

I usually offer to buy them a copy of Dawkins' 'The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution' and if they say no then I don't bother. It's a damn good book, a fun read and blows every criticism of evolutionary theory out of the water in a clear and supported manner. Also has coloured picture sections, which the 4-year-old in me likes.

Worth reading if you like that sort of thing.

 

[Skeleon]

Yes, but environmental conditions are not always stable, therefore randomness plays a huge roll in selection.

Of course. But the selection of which trait gets to survive through the generational transitions depends on those circumstances.
So selection is "guided" by said circumstances, if you will, disregarding the notion of something actively doing something, obviously.
I.e., during the cirumstances of a drought, longer necks would be beneficial for herbivores.
As you said, though, as circumstances change, so do the criteria for what is beneficial to selection.

 

[ThatsBitch3n]

First off TL;DR
Since i didnt read that, this may be off topic anyway. I dislike when i say i believe in Evolution, people assume i hat God and i want to punch Jesus. I say,God can coexist with evolution.

It can, but not with a literal interpretation of genesis. And great heaping loads of historical inaccuracy exists within the rest of the bible, but thats not really the subject.

And who says the christian god? but, i digress.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Irreducible complexity is usually brought up with ID more then evolution, but i know it's a common "problem" the have. The best way to shut them up (if they're claiming that ID is a scientific theory) is to ask them for a test to prove ID. ID has no proof and is wholly founded as nothing more then a series of attacks on evolution. That and the wedge document basically proves that ID was created to do nothing more then force religion back into schools.

Intelligent design sounds very good and plausable, right up until the point where you realise that whatever designed humans can't have been very intelligent. Also, I disagree with you on transitionals. I don't think transitionals exist simply because I don't really think that species exist. The difference between a pelycosaur and a human is just a few meteorite impacts, the odd ice age, some warm spells, and shed-loads of time.

However, the perfection and beauty of nature does lead many to conclude that there is far more too it than just a random chemical reaction which hasn't finished its process yet, that includes myself.

EDIT: I am curious. I understand how you would get pissed when you see creationists trying to get their stuff into science text books, but what about the people who just quietly believe that stuff?

What are you talking about? It doesn't sound plausible at all, based solely on the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to argue for it. The reason people get mad when you say evolution is a lie is because it is SCIENCE. It has been proven, FFS, stop moronically remaining willfully ignorant.

Uhm... K.

I was being ironic, as you might have been able to pick up on had you made it past the first comma in my post. But if the effort of reading that far was too great for you, I really can't hold you responsible for that.

That aside, the fact evolution takes place at all is nothing short of a miracle. If people want to believe that it is guided my something more deliberate than random mutations then I really don't see a whole lot of evidence against that. And no, "you can't prove it's true" doesn't constitute proof.

I don't care if you are god bashing or not, I was commenting on the first part of that sentence.

Ohh I never god bash, I have the utmost respect for the beliefs of others whether I agree with them or not. I can understand perfectly why someone thinks something like intelligent design takes place. Although I object to it being treated as science, because there is no method of testing it or obtaining control results, the notion that evolution isn't just a constant random sequence of events is pretty reasonable. I believe this myself, although I don't believe in intelligent design. I really don't think there is some kind of overall 'plan', but I see plenty that tells me that something or other, beyond our understanding or comprehension, smiles upon nature.

Please, tell me why you think that something guides evolution. If your answer is anything other than "I don't" please promptly learn and understand evolutionary theory.

If you want a forum exchange to be valuble then comment on the spirit of a post, rather than trying to use semantics to argue against a point the poster never made.

As for the answer to the question that you did ask, you may consider me a vitalist.

The fact that you are a vitalist leads me to infer that you are unfamiliar with evolutionary theory and the theories/hypotheses of abiogenesis. That is why I made the previous post.

Erm.. why would me being a vitalist make you believe that? Odd indeed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Driesch].

 

[Piecewise]

My "scientifically illiterate" ideas are part of who I am. I don't base all of my beliefs and actions on science, because there are a lot of things that science has nothing to do with.

Well, actually science is connected to everything, since the general idea of science it the attempt to explain the machinations of the universe. Science is mankinds continued efforts to tear away the boundries of ignorance and self delusion. If you wish to build your personal beliefs upon comforting lies, then that is your decision. But the reality is that, while the ideas of god and his actions are still beyond our comprehension or proof either way, we have learned a great deal about this earth we inhabit and that your ideas are flatly wrong.

 

[Piecewise]

First off TL;DR
Since i didnt read that, this may be off topic anyway. I dislike when i say i believe in Evolution, people assume i hat God and i want to punch Jesus. I say,God can coexist with evolution.

It can, but not with a literal interpretation of genesis. And great heaping loads of historical inaccuracy exists within the rest of the bible, but thats not really the subject.

And who says the christian god? but, i digress.

*shrug* in all reality I believe that if there is a god that no religion man as crafted would even come close to the reality of the subject. We place our feelings, emotions and thought processes into anything we do, and god is certain to be well beyond our petty mannerisms and ideas

 

[Piecewise]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Irreducible complexity is usually brought up with ID more then evolution, but i know it's a common "problem" the have. The best way to shut them up (if they're claiming that ID is a scientific theory) is to ask them for a test to prove ID. ID has no proof and is wholly founded as nothing more then a series of attacks on evolution. That and the wedge document basically proves that ID was created to do nothing more then force religion back into schools.

Intelligent design sounds very good and plausable, right up until the point where you realise that whatever designed humans can't have been very intelligent. Also, I disagree with you on transitionals. I don't think transitionals exist simply because I don't really think that species exist. The difference between a pelycosaur and a human is just a few meteorite impacts, the odd ice age, some warm spells, and shed-loads of time.

However, the perfection and beauty of nature does lead many to conclude that there is far more too it than just a random chemical reaction which hasn't finished its process yet, that includes myself.

EDIT: I am curious. I understand how you would get pissed when you see creationists trying to get their stuff into science text books, but what about the people who just quietly believe that stuff?

What are you talking about? It doesn't sound plausible at all, based solely on the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to argue for it. The reason people get mad when you say evolution is a lie is because it is SCIENCE. It has been proven, FFS, stop moronically remaining willfully ignorant.

Uhm... K.

I was being ironic, as you might have been able to pick up on had you made it past the first comma in my post. But if the effort of reading that far was too great for you, I really can't hold you responsible for that.

That aside, the fact evolution takes place at all is nothing short of a miracle. If people want to believe that it is guided my something more deliberate than random mutations then I really don't see a whole lot of evidence against that. And no, "you can't prove it's true" doesn't constitute proof.

I don't care if you are god bashing or not, I was commenting on the first part of that sentence.

Ohh I never god bash, I have the utmost respect for the beliefs of others whether I agree with them or not. I can understand perfectly why someone thinks something like intelligent design takes place. Although I object to it being treated as science, because there is no method of testing it or obtaining control results, the notion that evolution isn't just a constant random sequence of events is pretty reasonable. I believe this myself, although I don't believe in intelligent design. I really don't think there is some kind of overall 'plan', but I see plenty that tells me that something or other, beyond our understanding or comprehension, smiles upon nature.

Please, tell me why you think that something guides evolution. If your answer is anything other than "I don't" please promptly learn and understand evolutionary theory.

If you want a forum exchange to be valuble then comment on the spirit of a post, rather than trying to use semantics to argue against a point the poster never made.

As for the answer to the question that you did ask, you may consider me a vitalist.

The fact that you are a vitalist leads me to infer that you are unfamiliar with evolutionary theory and the theories/hypotheses of abiogenesis. That is why I made the previous post.

Erm.. why would me being a vitalist make you believe that? Odd indeed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Driesch].

The fact that blastomeres can be split apart and form a complete organism because the cells have not specialized yet is hardly an argument for vitalism.

Really the best thing for this is simply to say that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate anything other then purely natural occurances effecting biological processes. The problem here is that there is no known way to either prove or disprove vitalism or the like because there is nothing to test. If he wants to believe in this "invisible hand" then he can, but he must also admit that it is not a scientific idea

 

[Skeleon]

Mm, I'm still not sold, but I see what you are getting at. The reason I do not like that explanation is because selection is usually an "on/off or black/white" event, where one phenotype stays and the other goes, and it is one event at a time, and I wouldn't want to use the word guide for a switch. Plus, using that word leaves room for misinterpretation by people who have not been fortunate enough to study life sciences.

Well, but that's really just a question of semantics. I see what you mean but I'm not sure how to phrase it differently. The circumstances set the conditions for the selection. Is there a more passive word in English that means a similar thing to "guide" or "direct"?
EDIT: I even saw Dawkins struggle with these semantics, funnily enough.

As for selection being an on/off-event, I disagree with you there.
Considering vestigials, it's very obvious that phenotype changes are not on/off but continuous, with (EDIT: less advantageous) phenotypes being slowly phased out over time, so to speak.
A phenotype dying off completely and radically is rather rare and only occurs in extreme conditions (like, say, the dinosaurs dying off, possibly from an asteroid hit). Most of the time, these things happen a lot more slowly, continually and not in such an extreme manner. Many, many generations live and die with incrimental changes before a phenotype criterium is fully lost.

 

[lazy_bum]

Well written and factual. am very very immpressed. Have Cookies

 

[lazy_bum]

This post does not apply to all Religious Fundamentalists

Spoiler: troll content

So Good. need to show this to certain people on my religious studies course. then run and hide before they kill me.
they really really don't like having their religion challenged.

 

[grimsprice]

Don't worry, there are labs in Europe that are working on recessing birds genes so they grow teeth, tails, and scales. We'll have a croco-duck to shut up the creatards real soon.

 

[grimsprice]

The mutations are just random steps. The reason that polar bears are white to camouflage is because all of the ones that had genetic mutations of, say, black fur, got eaten by predators before they could reproduce, thus not passing their genes on to the next generation.

Wait... Polar bears have predators?

 

[Piecewise]

Great, then we need to get to work on the Piranha pidgeons

 

[Cakes]

Durrr, but if we come from apes, why are there still apes?!?

Because biologically speaking we ARE apes. One cannot outgrow ones ancestry.

Once a spinal column, always a vertebrata. Once a vertebrata with mammary glands and sweat glands, always a mammalia. Once a mammal with enlargened brain, developed stereoscopic vision with loss of smell sensitivity, always a primate. And so forth. We simply do not write all these things before Homo Sapiens, because it serves no practical purpose. But we are apes, just as both apes and fish are vertebrates. Most simply do not understand that an 'ape' refers not to a species of animal, but a member of Hominoidea superfamily, an entire categorical classification just like being called a 'vertebrate'.

I just had a conversation about this. Yes, I am aware of how evolution works. No, I am not that stupid. Yes, it was sarcasm.