Evolution: The common misconceptions.

[Seanchaidh]

That aside, the fact evolution takes place at all is nothing short of a miracle.

Actually, it's a result of chemical reactions and physical processes that follow unswervingly the laws of nature, and therefore not a miracle in the slightest.

 

[Vrex360]

Well played, I have to say that by this point evolution has been more or less proven. Also one thing when people say 'theory' of evolution it does not mean 'theory' as in 'opinion/belief', it instead means 'a logically supported model that can be scientifically documented and tested and is backed up by evidence'.... the same words but different meanings. That's another common misconception.
But still I applaud you, well done on having some detailed arguments backed up with evidence.

 

[The_Graff]

I always LOL at people who seem to think religion and science in general (evolution in particular) are incompatible - its Dwakins level retardism at its funniest. A christian (who has actually gotten off his/her ass and thought through their beliefs)will tend to believe in a God who created the entirety of the material universe, the laws of logic and science they rely on, to an insane level of accuracy (look up the margin of error on the Big Bang) instantly, from nothing. Evolution is not exactly that impressive after pulling that kind of a stunt.

 

[jamesworkshop]

I always LOL at people who seem to think religion and science in general (evolution in particular) are incompatible - its Dwakins level retardism at its funniest. A christian (who has actually gotten off his/her ass and thought through their beliefs)will tend to believe in a God who created the entirety of the material universe, the laws of logic and science they rely on, to an insane level of accuracy (look up the margin of error on the Big Bang) instantly, from nothing. Evolution is not exactly that impressive after pulling that kind of a stunt.

Science and religion are incompatible because one is based of external observation whereas the other is personally infered knowledge for example "God spoke to me"
gravity was proved by observation and tests rather than a knowledge dispensing Apple
(that also happens to be invisible, immortal, while being infinitly kind and irredeemably cruel at the same time)

 

[GloatingSwine]

I always LOL at people who seem to think religion and science in general (evolution in particular) are incompatible

Eventually, everyone who maintains a religious position has to either compromise their work as a scientist by deliberately not investigating anything which calls that religious position into question, or admit that their religious position is not neccesarily correct (which, of course, is actual heresy for most religions).

 

[Stocky37]

I always LOL at people who seem to think religion and science in general (evolution in particular) are incompatible - its Dwakins level retardism at its funniest. A christian (who has actually gotten off his/her ass and thought through their beliefs)will tend to believe in a God who created the entirety of the material universe, the laws of logic and science they rely on, to an insane level of accuracy (look up the margin of error on the Big Bang) instantly, from nothing. Evolution is not exactly that impressive after pulling that kind of a stunt.

Science and religion are incompatible because one is based of external observation whereas the other is personally infered knowledge for example "God spoke to me"
gravity was proved by observation and tests rather than a knowledge dispensing Apple
(that also happens to be invisible, immortal, while being infinitly kind and irredeemably cruel at the same time)

This has absolutely nothing to do with them being incompatible! They're completely unrelated issues of each 'system'. What 'The_Graff' is saying is that its not impossible to believe both to some extent. I was taught the theory of evolution at both a Catholic Primary and High School. If science and religion were incompatible you would be telling me that I cannot believe in Darwinism at the same time as being a Catholic?!

 

[jamesworkshop]

I always LOL at people who seem to think religion and science in general (evolution in particular) are incompatible - its Dwakins level retardism at its funniest. A christian (who has actually gotten off his/her ass and thought through their beliefs)will tend to believe in a God who created the entirety of the material universe, the laws of logic and science they rely on, to an insane level of accuracy (look up the margin of error on the Big Bang) instantly, from nothing. Evolution is not exactly that impressive after pulling that kind of a stunt.

Science and religion are incompatible because one is based of external observation whereas the other is personally infered knowledge for example "God spoke to me"
gravity was proved by observation and tests rather than a knowledge dispensing Apple
(that also happens to be invisible, immortal, while being infinitly kind and irredeemably cruel at the same time)

This has absolutely nothing to do with them being incompatible! They're completely unrelated issues of each 'system'. What 'The_Graff' is saying is that its not impossible to believe both to some extent. I was taught the theory of evolution at both a Catholic Primary and High School. If science and religion were incompatible you would be telling me that I cannot believe in Darwinism at the same time as being a Catholic?!

"knowledge dispensing Apple"
And you didn't think the post was humorous

the aquiring of knowledge (epistomology) in science and religion is where the incompatibility lies no scientific theroy could ever be expressed as "God spoke to me"
In general terms a religion is simply a philosophy put into practice and thus is no more incompatible than say a Nilhistic Scientist

 

[cuddly_tomato]

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.

1. I don't believe in any 'god', so you are way off base there.

2. Science is not connected to everything. Science has nothing to say about ethics, spiritual and moral direction, art, music, love, and all those other things that make humans... human. I don't take The Beatles into a lab to see if I like them, I don't have a formula for the reason I love the woman in my life.

3. I am not "flatly wrong" until I can be proved otherwise. Unless you can do that, then do not claim otherwise. Well you can claim otherwise, but then you really shouldn't complain about creationists, because you basically have their same mindset - I am right, everyone else is wrong.

4. You are religious yourself, you just have a different kind of religion [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.155122.3780853]. Trying to cram "science is god" down everyone elses throats and claiming scientific jurisdiction of matters completely unscientific only further proves your own fundamentalism.

Seriously, you started out this thread with an excellent post about evolution, now you are calling things completely unconnected (which many people here hold dear) "comforting lies". What is the problem with the beliefs of others exactly? Was the purpose of this thread just to get someone to argue with you, so you could tear into religion?

Spoiler

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.

I wasn't trying to show any evidence for it, I was merely trying to explain that believing in a concept such as vitalism does not mean one has to be ignorant of evolution and biology. Vitalism is an unproven belief, and as such I wouldn't dream of trying to 'prove' it to anyone, although I would be happy to explain why I believe it. I have good reasons for believing it myself, but they are my own reasons, so I don't claim it as 'truth', but opinion.

I hope this clarifies where I am coming from Glefistus.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

ugh honestly, i put creationists in the same category as cultists, evangelicalism, and 2012 doomsdays peeps.

I prefer to look at them as...minerals... assuming they cant talk so i better ignore the voices.

 

[DoW Lowen]

*Snip*

Well done. I always like these threads.

Someone's been reading 'Greatest Show on Earth' haven't they? Or is at least a big fan of Richard Dawkins.

If I may add something, evolution from a psychology perspective often has a major misconception. When psychologists attempt to explain human behavior through evolution, those theories are often called too reductionist. Such as men prefer younger women because they are more virile and can bear them a healthier child to carry on their genes.

Psychology in that sense is often slandered for stating that 'everything we do is in service of our genes' however we are often misquoted. Our genes don't control our behavior, in fact our behavior controls our genes. The actions and mannerisms that have endured over time and space just so happen to be a few in many social interactions that have survived across generations. Monogamy, courtship, institutional love... all are not determined by our biology rather our behavior simply just so happens to benefit our biology and that's why it just so happens to still be in existence.

Just thought that I'd add an account of evolutionary behavior to your well thought out list.

 

[Stocky37]

snip

This has absolutely nothing to do with them being incompatible! They're completely unrelated issues of each 'system'. What 'The_Graff' is saying is that its not impossible to believe both to some extent. I was taught the theory of evolution at both a Catholic Primary and High School. If science and religion were incompatible you would be telling me that I cannot believe in Darwinism at the same time as being a Catholic?!

"knowledge dispensing Apple"
And you didn't think the post was humorous

the aquiring of knowledge (epistomology) in science and religion is where the incompatibility lies no scientific theroy could ever be expressed as "God spoke to me"
In general terms a religion is simply a philosophy put into practice and thus is no more incompatible than say a Nilhistic Scientist

I did actually LOL at the "knowledge dispensing apple" =P. But again this is unrelated. No-one that i have ever come across believes that the knowledge they learn/discover/prove comes directly from some divine manifestation from some god/deity (maybe creativity etc but not knowledge). I don't think anyone's claiming God spoke to Einstein in order for him to formulate his theories on relativity.

However, I may be misinterpreting your definition of the incompatibility here. What I think you're getting at is that if someone has a certain religious belief, than they are, what, incapable of 'believing' in science? (I've most probably got your point completely wrong though LOL)

 

[GloatingSwine]

2. Science is not connected to everything. Science has nothing to say about ethics, spiritual and moral direction, art, music, love, and all those other things that make humans... human. I don't take The Beatles into a lab to see if I like them, I don't have a formula for the reason I love the woman in my life.

Science is a method of investigation. As such it can be used for everything. Especially ethics, as most modern ethical systems have extremely firm empirical backing.

Likewise, human and animal behaviour, including how things affect us and why we like them, can be empirically studied and often are. Your understanding of what science actually is is woefully incomplete.

3. I am not "flatly wrong" until I can be proved otherwise. Unless you can do that, then do not claim otherwise. Well you can claim otherwise, but then you really shouldn't complain about creationists, because you basically have their same mindset - I am right, everyone else is wrong.

Until you can show evidence to support your position, your position is not worth considering. If I claim to have a billion pounds and a three foot penis, I would be expected to provide evidence of these facts.

4. You are religious yourself, you just have a different kind of religion [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.155122.3780853]. Trying to cram "science is god" down everyone elses throats and claiming scientific jurisdiction of matters completely unscientific only further proves your own fundamentalism.

Ah, the old "but science is a religion tooooo" canard. No it isn't. Science evaluates evidence to form conclusions, religion forms the conclusions first and selectively evaluates the evidence to support them.

 

[Aerodyamic]

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

It's irrelevant which Judeo-Christian God you pick; YHWH, Allah and God are the same thing in the original text of all three religions. The immediately noticeable differences between the three religions is the role of Christ (son of god or prophet), and whether or not the New Testament is considered a part of the bible.

On topic: Well done, my friend. Makes me want to read 'The Naked Ape' again, just because it's been a good read, every time.

 

[Skeleon]

I prefer to look at them as...minerals... assuming they cant talk so i better ignore the voices.

Oi, no hatin' on minerals. I like crystals and such.

2. Science is not connected to everything. Science has nothing to say about ethics, spiritual and moral direction, art, music, love, and all those other things that make humans... human.

Actually, there is research into these issues and their role in our (and our ancestors' and cousins') evolution.
Science is connected to everything in the natural world, it tries to find explanations for everything we observe, including morals, emotions, art...

*snip*

Well. Yeah.
I don't have anything to add or counter and I don't think you tried to point out any flaws in my post, so I'm just going to assume that you were simply adding some further insights.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

2. Science is not connected to everything. Science has nothing to say about ethics, spiritual and moral direction, art, music, love, and all those other things that make humans... human.

Actually, there is research into these issues and their role in our (and our ancestors' and cousins') evolution.
Science is connected to everything in the natural world, it tries to find explanations for everything we observe, including morals, emotions, art...

There is a difference in why they came about, and whether or not we should persist with them. We have covered this ground before - why, logically, should we keep these things? Wouldn't humanity as a whole be better if emotion, love, hate, joy, pain, etc were all removed? If humans could surgically remove all these things from the human mind, should they? Logically, yes. Rationally, no.

You know exactly what I am getting at here Skeleon, and I believe that you know exactly what the purpose behind this thread was. Defending science on its own ground is admirable. Using it as a club to beat down unconnected aspects of human endeavour is not.

Defend, don't attack.

3. I am not "flatly wrong" until I can be proved otherwise. Unless you can do that, then do not claim otherwise. Well you can claim otherwise, but then you really shouldn't complain about creationists, because you basically have their same mindset - I am right, everyone else is wrong.

Until you can show evidence to support your position, your position is not worth considering. If I claim to have a billion pounds and a three foot penis, I would be expected to provide evidence of these facts.

Now you are just being silly. If I decide I want to go and have a bath, I don't need to prove to everyone else that I actually need a bath. The fact I want one should be good enough. I am not asking anyone else to believe anything. Just to asking others to stop shoving their beliefs down the throats of others, and to not treat the beliefs of others with prejudice, scorn, or belittlement as long as they respect your beliefs.

 

[Skeleon]

There is a difference in why they came about, and whether or not we should persist with them. We have covered this ground before - why, logically, should we keep these things? Wouldn't humanity as a whole be better if emotion, love, hate, joy, pain, etc were all removed?

We wouldn't be humans then, we'd be something different.
I'm not saying that this different thing would be better or worse because I don't know.
Furthermore, science simply researches these aspects of humanity (and other animals with similar social structures or any structures at all) and tries to explain how they came about and how they work. It doesn't judge them, it tries to remain objective.

You know exactly what I am getting at here Skeleon.

Not really. I was only pointing out that, say, biological sciences are not limited to how cells, plants or bodies work but also communities of animals (with morals, laws, emotions and triggered responses to them and so on) and everything that entails.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

You know exactly what I am getting at here Skeleon.

Not really. I was only pointing out that, say, biological sciences are not limited to how cells, plants or bodies work but also communities of animals (with morals, laws, emotions and triggered responses to them and so on) and everything that entails.

The differences of "why" and "how". I know exactly "how" a car works. But I have to make up my own mind about "why" I need to drive it somewhere.

Cart before horse dear friend. The difference between mythos and logos. Humans believe stuff. All humans, whether they admit to it or not. Whether it is something like god, or concepts of justice, or morality, or ethics, or spirituality, or the mystical power behind drawing faces on hollowed out eggs, that Project Pitchfork make better music than Mozart, humans believe.

If a human believes nothing, and demands everything be logical. Thinks that life is nothing more than a random chemical reaction that hasn't resolved itself yet, and that there is nothing more intrinsically important between a rock and a child (science says they are both just matter - nothing more), then they are no longer human. Quite a few "humans" have existed over the years with this philosophy, and without exception they are monsters... "inhuman" monsters.

Science is a tool of humans. It is something we use. We have to dictate what science can and can't tell us, not the other way around. Where we find it can be applied, it should be applied, but it should not be where it has no business being.

 

[Skeleon]

The differences of "why" and "how". I know exactly "how" a car works. But I have to make up my own mind about "why" I need to drive it somewhere.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here (used an online dictionary to get that one! ^^), I never claimed science was trying to explain any kind of metaphysical "why". It does however give an evolutionary "why"-answer which you may or may not accept. *shrugs*

(science says they are both just matter - nothing more)

That's grossly oversimplifying things.
Yes, I consist of matter. But I'm also a product of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection as well as my ancestors' and my own choices. I'm not the same as a rock, neither in my, scientists' nor science's eyes.

We have to dictate what science can and can't tell us, not the other way around.

Sorry, but I simply disagree with that. Science must be free from personal influences to work.
You, as an individual, are obviously free to reject certain parts or even all of what science teaches.
But you and anybody else, be it individual, institution or state, are not free to dictate its course.
That's what happened during the Dark Ages and they aren't called that without good reason.

Oh, and please don't call me "dear friend". It sounds condescending, even if that might not've been your intention.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

The differences of "why" and "how". I know exactly "how" a car works. But I have to make up my own mind about "why" I need to drive it somewhere.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here (used an online dictionary to get that one! ^^), I never claimed science was trying to explain any kind of metaphysical "why". It does however give an evolutionary "why"-answer which you may or may not accept. *shrugs*

(science says they are both just matter - nothing more)

That's grossly oversimplifying things.
Yes, I consist of matter. But I'm also a product of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection as well as my ancestors' and my own choices. I'm not the same as a rock, neither in my, scientists' nor science's eyes.

Ahhh but you are. A rock is a product of billions of years of geological formation, astronomical formation, chemical bonding, being boiled in the earth, being frozen in space... been through a lot, your average rock.

Natural selection is just another chemical process. It is no more or less "important" than any rock, logically, because logically nothing has "importance". If you are claiming that natural selection is any different, to science, than geological formation, or star formation, or supernovae, or any other phenomena in physics then you are attaching some kind of... spiritual aspect to science.

We have to dictate what science can and can't tell us, not the other way around.

Sorry, but I simply disagree with that. Science must be free from personal influences to work.
You, as an individual, are obviously free to reject certain parts or even all of what science teaches.

Sorry, but you are actually agreeing with me, you are just misunderstanding my point because I made it clumsily, and instead made the point for me.

You said that science has to be free from personal influence.

What I was trying to illustrate is that science has to be free from human influence.

Humans have certain aspects that make them human. Compassion, mercy, love, warmth, and all that kinda stuff. But hate, malice, greed, envy, jealousy, despotism and all that kinda stuff is also very human.

What would a person, with an agenda, do with something like evolution and natural selection? What would he do with "survival of the fittest"? Well we know don't we.

It is up to us, as humans, to say:- "science tells us this is what happened, and continues to happen, but that doesn't mean we have to adhere to what it says. We can decide what to do with, not how to interpret, this information.

But you and anybody else, be it individual, institution or state, are not free to dictate its course.
That's what happened during the Dark Ages and they aren't called that without good reason.

You familiar with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research#United_States]?

What about this [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/aumed.html]?

Or how about this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Vivisection]?

What would you say about this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipeholm_experiments]?

Would you endeavour to stop this, or aid it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_22,_North_Korea#Alleged_abuse]?

I strongly disagree with you. We should not only dictate what is done in the name of science but we should bring it to heel when it goes to far, and destroy its findings and the names of the people involved so that others in the future do not attempt to use similar methods. This is why I utterly hate the amoral reductionist philosophy espoused by those following this dialectical materialsm.

It is no use being right about science if we get life completely wrong.

Oh, and please don't call me "dear friend". It sounds condescending, even if that might not've been your intention.

I was trying to not come across as an ass for disagreeing with you actually, where I am from such words are a sign of respect and courtesy. But have it your way, I am sorry.

 

[Skeleon]

Sigh.
Why do our conversations always get so bloated in such a short amount of time?
It's always so much work answering.

Ahhh but you are. A rock is a product of billions of years of geological formation, astronomical formation, chemical bonding, being boiled in the earth, being frozen in space... been through a lot, your average rock.

Yes. But it's been through different things than a species developing.
Again, you're oversimplifying things. At the core of it you're right, both rock and I are matter. But how we came to be differ very much.

Natural selection is just another chemical process.

It's not something chemical. Mutations are chemical/physical.
At its very core, again, you're right, for mutations make it possible for populations to change. So chemistry is of importance for evolution as a whole.

But natural selection itself is about reproduction depending on what works better than other strategies. It's about populations and their differences becoming more pronounced over time.
Natural selection would happen even if the process by which differences in populations came about were not chemical but something different. It doesn't matter for natural selection (though, as I said, it does matter for evolution as a whole).
Why that would mean that lifeforms aren't something special is beyond me.
Why do you think that the fact that life can come about and change naturally somehow devalues it?

It is no more or less "important" than any rock...

I wasn't saying I was objectively more "important" than a rock, I said I'm different. Rocks are quite important in their way for this world.

What would a person, with an agenda, do with something like evolution and natural selection? What would he do with "survival of the fittest"? Well we know don't we.

How is that the theory's fault?
Let's just assume that it's true (although you seem to doubt it). Should we ignore fact because it might lead to bad things?
Should we close our eyes, stick our heads in the sand and say something different instead simply because truth can be a burden?
The problem is not with the theory of evolution or science, it's with what is done with it. Similar, you might say, to religion, as it's been exploited over millenia for political gain, warfare, genocide, oppression and so on.
I hope you remember that I have always said I'm not opposed to religion itself but to religious institutions gaining worldly power and the loss of separation of state and church.

It is up to us, as humans, to say:- "science tells us this is what happened, and continues to happen, but that doesn't mean we have to adhere to what it says. We can decide what to do with, not how to interpret, this information.

Nobody in their right mind gains their personal moral values from science but from their parents, peers and community.
Just because natural selection happens doesn't mean that we have to employ Social Darwinism or eugenics.
Science doesn't tell us what to do. Science just tells us what happened/happens.
I really don't get you. I consider myself a moral person and I'm deeply opposed to Social Darwinism yet I believe in natural selection. Why? Because, while I accept scientific explanations, I don't base my morals on some twisted image of that.
I know how scientists currently think that morals came about. I know what use they might have had in our evolution.
And you know what? I still follow those morals.
The fact that those morals came about naturally and weren't somehow inspired by something else doesn't devalue them!
They're still useful for us to live as a community. They minimize danger and suffering. They still help us propagate our species. Why would I want to give that up? Why would their origin make them useless all of a sudden?

*url snip*

Okay, you got me there, things can get out of hand.
We obviously need regulations.
However, note that I said "dictate its course", that's a bit different.
For example, I'm pro stem cell research because a) it might help paraplegics, Alzheimer's patients and countless other people one day and b) the embryos used are never going to be used for implantation anyway.
However, I'm opposed to creating embryos specifically to be used for said research.
Neither of these things, however, mean that I'd want to stop stem cell research altogether!
If I were, I'd not only hinder science travel that road, I'd change its course altogether.
I hope this little example helps get my point across: As with everything, we require the right balance. Damn, I say that a lot, don't I?