Evolution: The common misconceptions.
- Thread starter Piecewise
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To be fair, most people are willing to accept the process of natural selection - that is, the notion that the creature that can best adapt will survive and those that cannot will die. T This is actually a readily tested theory as one can point to the extinction of any creature in modern day and as an example of failure to adapt, or point to notable cases (such as the moths in england during the Industrial Revolution) as an example where adaptation worked just fine. The theoritical part is the assumption that there is a capcity for spontaneous genetic mutation, which has more than a little credability. Bacteria for example is proven itself fully capable of such things, and even complex organisms demonstrate this (cancer for example is the result of genetic mutation).
The theory of evolution is simply a statement that, over a long enough period of time, the minor changes forced by natural selection would produce an overall change in a species. This may be something as simple as the relative rarity of an albino squirrel (they find it difficult to hide from predators and thus don't often live long enough to reproduce). Evolution is little more than a logical extension of the idea of natural selection. This one is a little more difficult to test unfortunately as it takes many generations to produce a change in the population.
Speciation is the result of carrying the logic of natural selection to it's conclusion. Simply put, if changes in an environment will favor one genetic mutation over another over time this will result in a shift in the population to favor this successful mutation. Over a long enough period of time, such minor shifts would resonably result in a creature that can be classified as different from a starting point. If you carry this out over an extremely long period (say 50,000 generations or so), it would be reasonable to assume that there may only be a rudimentary similarity to the starting species.
Of the three, speciation is the hardest to prove because it relies on such a long period of time that direct testing is nearly impossible. The only recourse is to rely on the fossil record in an attempt to determine if there is a pattern that can be followed. This procedure is obviously going to generate a lot of flack becasue one cannot actually directly observe the process and must instead induce what may have happened. What's worse, is many people tend to believe (fundamentalists primarily) that the very idea of speciation is blasphemy. Others simply find it distasteful to believe that their most distant ancestor might have simply been a particularly complex chemical in a tidewater pool.
To those that believe evolution and the like blasphemy, I would submit that there is no reason such an explantion cannot coexist with the teachings of your religion. While evolution might not be as incredible as simply snaping one's fingers and creating all the life on earth, who's to say what process an intelligent designer might leverage to get his intended result. And for those who find the notion of evolution distasteful because of what it implies, remember - you're almost certainly only a handful of generations removed from people who used their hands for toilet paper and married their cousins. Besides, at the core of it all, life is nothing more than a fantastically complex series of chemical reactions and interactions
The theory of evolution is simply a statement that, over a long enough period of time, the minor changes forced by natural selection would produce an overall change in a species. This may be something as simple as the relative rarity of an albino squirrel (they find it difficult to hide from predators and thus don't often live long enough to reproduce). Evolution is little more than a logical extension of the idea of natural selection. This one is a little more difficult to test unfortunately as it takes many generations to produce a change in the population.
Speciation is the result of carrying the logic of natural selection to it's conclusion. Simply put, if changes in an environment will favor one genetic mutation over another over time this will result in a shift in the population to favor this successful mutation. Over a long enough period of time, such minor shifts would resonably result in a creature that can be classified as different from a starting point. If you carry this out over an extremely long period (say 50,000 generations or so), it would be reasonable to assume that there may only be a rudimentary similarity to the starting species.
Of the three, speciation is the hardest to prove because it relies on such a long period of time that direct testing is nearly impossible. The only recourse is to rely on the fossil record in an attempt to determine if there is a pattern that can be followed. This procedure is obviously going to generate a lot of flack becasue one cannot actually directly observe the process and must instead induce what may have happened. What's worse, is many people tend to believe (fundamentalists primarily) that the very idea of speciation is blasphemy. Others simply find it distasteful to believe that their most distant ancestor might have simply been a particularly complex chemical in a tidewater pool.
To those that believe evolution and the like blasphemy, I would submit that there is no reason such an explantion cannot coexist with the teachings of your religion. While evolution might not be as incredible as simply snaping one's fingers and creating all the life on earth, who's to say what process an intelligent designer might leverage to get his intended result. And for those who find the notion of evolution distasteful because of what it implies, remember - you're almost certainly only a handful of generations removed from people who used their hands for toilet paper and married their cousins. Besides, at the core of it all, life is nothing more than a fantastically complex series of chemical reactions and interactions
Okay. I'm catholic and I already knew this. The people you are trying to contact don't hang out on this website because there are far to many atheists and self titled "anti-theists" here. Nice work, but it is all for not I'm afraid.
great quality of a post that really explains what youre trying to say.
Reminds me of my days as a biology major...
Reminds me of my days as a biology major...
Well, I suppose you could call me a technical agnostic. Sure I don't deny I can't disprove every idea of God or gods (seeing how people within just one religion have many interpretations), but this is much in the same way I can't absolutely prove there are no pink space elephants.Nmil-ek said:
There are however so many ideas of gods and other beliefs within religions that are full of contradictions, that it's safe to say that if there's something that can be called a god, it's pretty much dumb luck on religion's part.
Those goddamn penguins...grimsprice said:
You might wish to add that the idea of evolution was not Darwins. Darwin proposed natural selection as a mechanism of evolution.
If I was really being exact I would have to say that it was co-created with Wallace and influenced by Lamarckism which was influenced by even eariler concepts. The basic premise of change over time has been around since the greeks or eariler I think.ma55ter_fett said:
I'd assume for them it was more the other way around.grimsprice said:
If their prey saw them coming beforehand, it might've gotten away, so the camouflaged ones got to eat more.
Well, let's compromise and say that functionality of phenotypes can be phased out quite quickly while retaining both genes and vestigial phenotypes (think of whales as one of countless examples of vestigials, who still have leg bones to this very day despite not having legs).Glefistus said:
ugh honestly, i put creationists in the same category as cultists, evangelicalism, and 2012 doomsdays peeps.
This thread fucking wins. I hate when people bash evolution without even understanding it. Also, one more thing I think this needs added to it: Darwin never claimed to know everything about evolution. People constantly quote mine Darwin and think that that counts for something. Darwin was a fairly intelligent guy, but being as he started from nothing, it's expected that he didn't have ALL the answers about the topic he was researching by the time he was done, especially with something like evolution that requires a large amount of evidence in the shape of a fossil record. Darwin does not represent evolution as a whole, that's not the way that science works.
interesting and u cited your resources i think.. Well you get an A even though i don't care about evolution.
Well said in a non offencive way
Well said in a non offencive way
Whales (and dolphins) are an interesting example. It's clear that during their evolutionary history they evolved first in the sea, moved to being land dwelling mammals, and then went back to the sea.Skeleon said:
There's far more in their makeup that betrays landgoing ancestry as well. The fact that their spine moves in the vertical plane, like a land mammal, not the horizontal plane, like a fish, for instance. The fact that they have never reconverted their lungs and chest cavities back into swim bladders, since it was evolutionarily cheaper to simply move the nostril to the top of the head and learn to hold their breath better.
Also, fun fact, the closest evolutionary relative of Whales and Dolphins is the Hippapotomus, and they are more closely related than the Hippo is to any other land mammal.
That was a very nice discussion. And that is why if i was a betting man i would out my money on evolution, as it happens i am not a betting man but id still put my money on evolution (meaning i refuse to accept anything as a universal fact but i think allot of things are solid enough to not need to worry, and evolution is nearly one such thing).