The misinterpretation of evolution

[weker]

The environment is not considered in evolution, though. A monkey in one environment will not mutate differently than a monkey in another: it's just that those mutations will thrive in different areas. You can say the environment 'guides' the evolution, but that's not really 'guiding', that's being shaped. It's like saying that if I cram my foot into a too small shoe it's being 'guided' into growing crippled bones.

"A monkey in one environment will NOT mutate differently than a monkey in another"
Well firstly being in an area with more radiation would possibly make a monkey to mutate more, and thus increases the chance of genetic difference.

The guiding hand analysis is debatable mostly due to perspective, as with the shoe comment "if I cram my foot into a too small shoe it's being 'guided' into growing crippled bones" this is taking a negative stance (not the best example).

um I will try a more neutral example.
If I poured a gel like substance on a "perfectly flat" (near impossible to find one) It would pool out in a blob, however if I poured it into a shoe, it would be "guided" by the shoes shape.

While your analogy was fine it's just it was designed from a negative point of view.

 

[PSYCHOxDRAGON]

I have never seen an evolution thread on The Escapist.

I have seen 3 since Deus Ex: Human Revolution's release.

Coincidence..........?

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I think they should just show the theories and the evidence in the classroom then let people decide for themselves. Just as far as I know their is not much evidence for creationism...

 

[TheArtfulNudger]

The reason this is not done ever is because science does not have two sides, it has one side: the information. It does not give information and misinformation equal time. We don't give equal time in mathematics to Two plus Two equals Five. We don't give equal time in history class to Holocaust Denial. We don't give equal time in geography class to Flat Earth believers. And we don't give equal time in science to people who believe the Earth and it's inhabitants were created in a week by an invisible flying magician. In all these cases the misinformation completely fails all three tenents for being a scientific theory and as such are taught as science in the same way Ancient Greek mythology is (ie not at all. Ever). That's why,sir.

 

[Treblaine]

I will start off by saying I am no scientist. However, I have noticed that almost everywhere (including here on the Escapist) many people do not understand evolution. This not just simple missteps like accidentally involving use and disuse into your arguments,

What do you mean by that?

I thought it was quite well accepted that species which don't use a genetically determined feature tend to lose that feature over time. As with Vitamin C synthesis is the great apes and broad sense of smell in humans.

 

[weker]

I'd also like to ask why is it sad that people don't believe in evolution? as far as I'm aware by atheistic principles there's no real reason for you to... (I don't know any other word for it so I'm just going to say it) evangelize atheism.

"I'd also like to ask why is it sad that people don't believe in evolution?"
The reason why is because it is proven time after time that it is true, and the only reason why it is not is because a book says so, and as such can be interpreted as a denial of reality.

"evangelize atheism" Unsure what you mean care to elaborate?

 

[Cowabungaa]

Most annoying misinterpretation to me is that people keep forgetting the important distinction between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution.

It's not that hard people! Evolution has happened, that's a fact, the theory evolution tries to explain how it happened.

So, you can't really put Creationism at odds with Evolution. I think the problem is that people do put it as Evolution vs. Creationism.

Yes, you can. This isn't about faith or opinions, but cold hard facts. One answer, whatever it may be.

The Church instead exists to give guidance on why life exists.

I so love the silliness of that question.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

I think they should just show the theories and the evidence in the classroom then let people decide for themselves. Just as far as I know their is not much evidence for creationism...

Not "not much" NONE. There is NO evidence for creationism that can be held up for even the most basic scientific analysis. It doesn't even past muster as a hypothesis let alone graduate to theory, and it has no place being presented in a classroom as such.

 

[trollnystan]

SNIP

...or maybe we'll evolve out of it? =P Maybe God is sitting somewhere trawling through lines of code going 'I'm *sure* I debugged this bit...why is there *always* a semicolon still missing when you try and hit compile?!?!?'

=D

That made me laugh, thank you. +2 internets for you! =D

OP: I'm an evolutionist. Truth be told, the only time I met someone who didn't think evolution is true was when I was nine. It was at Catholic summer camp and there where two kids there that did not believe in dinosaurs or that the world is billions of years old. The rest of us kids tried to reason with them but they just wouldn't budge.

I have a friend who is a American and a Christian and she believes in evolution. Or as some have put it in this thread, Theist Evolution. She believes that God was what started the whole thing going. She also believes that the 6 days in the Bible are not to be taken literal - who knows how long a day is for God? She also believes that creationism and ID have NO place in a Science classroom.

I myself am Agnostic. Or maybe Jedi - I think that every living thing is connected by something we can't really explain. I am of course aware that I could be spectacularly wrong, which is why I term myself as Agnostic.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the Theory of Evolution. I don't even dabble in it; the closest I get is reading scientific articles now and again.[footnote]For example, I read a few months ago that the humans that left Africa successfully bred with Neanderthals, which means that Africans are the "pure" humans. I wish I could find a racist and throw that in their face.[/footnote] But it's what makes most sense to me personally, and it is backed up with scientific fact. So far I've never heard ID being used to claim that aliens guided our design, only God. Which means it belongs in Religion class.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I am a Catholic, but I still know that evolution exists, and I agree that it is appalling that most people don't don't know about it. However, I do not think everyone should be forced to believe in evolution, if people don't want to, why make them? Intelligent design is still a possible theory, as is the theory of evolution, I think God guided evolution but, I'm not going to go around and try and make people teach this in schools everywhere.

As a Catholic you should know that the Church support Evolution. Unlike Fundementalist baptist and protestant sects in America, the Church support evolution as a scientifically sound theory about how life originated. In fact, the Church does not seek to explain how life was created. Science can do that. The Church instead exists to give guidance on why life exists.

Whenver I hear a Catholic questioning evolution I want to smack 'em upside the head. I had 12 years of Catholic Jesuit education and evolution was never presented to me as anything other than a valid scientific theory for the creation of life, with an enormous amount of scientific evidence backing it up.

You may want to rephrase that explanation, sir, lest you fall into the same trap. Evolution does nothing to explain how life was created, it only describes the process through which organisms and species adapt and mutate with their environments over a period of time. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is the theory that deals specifically with a non-deity driven method of how life was "created" on this planet, and potentially on other habitable planets not unlike our own.

Otherwise, I'm glad to hear the second paragraph. At least, as long as you realize that the "why" for life from the Catholic Church only really sounds any bit valid to those already of the faith. And, of course, assuming there is an objective "why" to life anywhere in the universe.. Personally, I find most of the value of my life simply in the beautiful fact that I am alive in this chaotic, yet "orderly" universe, against all odds of possibly not existing due to any number of biological or technological reasons. I get to witness the universe and the natural world until my biological materials return to both, and nourish the next life-form to benefit from that. Henceforth, my answer to "why".

 

[UnknownGunslinger]

Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

So do you think that all religions should also be thought equal in schools?
According to your argument:

People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true.

Then, there is also no reason why Western Judeo-Christian Creationism and Evolution should be the only ones thought in schools.
What about all the other theories of the origins of the world, that are as old and older than Christian creationism?

If you want to give equal opportunity to the children as you said you wanted to, then shouldnt you also teach them that 19 million Hindus believed for 6,000 years that the World came to be from the splitting of a Lotus flower?
Surely that's as valid as theory as the one that God created the world, by your logic.
I don't see anything wrong with it, shouldnt it also be taught in schools?
It's as valid as anything else!
Or what about the beam of light that created the world according to the 394 million Chinese Tao practitioners?
Or the 376 million Buddhist who don't believe the world was ever created?

And what about all the other valid theories men has come to belie throughout the ages?
Shouldnt we teach children about the origin theories that the Norse people had?
Or the Ancient Egyptians?
Or the Native American Civilisations?

Please answer me I'd really like to know what you think.

 

[ultimateownage]

You sound worse than the religious guys.
'How DARE you disagree with my beliefs! THEY ARE FACTS!'

Evolution has no proof. It has EVIDENCE, but it doesn't have proof. I couldn't see any explanation of misinterpretation in your post, all I could see was whining.

 

[Tiberiu Paul Iordache]

I am a student at a faculty of Biology and I am amazed by the number of people that either have studied evolutionism (or at least heard of it) and just refuse to believe despite the HUGE quantity of evidence that supports it, or people that have not studied evolutionism but still think it is wrong because "that's not what my parents taught me to believe in, they taught to believe in God".

Now I am not saying religion is bad (in fact I believe humans need religion still) but I am getting tired of people refusing to look at evidence. I am also tired of people who believe the local newspaper is a reliable source of scientific information (especially when it comes to the sciences that make up biology).

If religion is to be taught in schools than evolutionism should also be taught. I believe the only reason that is not happening right now is because "some people" think they clash and they favor giving young children the traditional explanation for existence. Creationism and Evolutionism DO NOT CLASH. Evolutionism only disproves the fact that all forms of life that live today were created by some all-powerful being about 6000 years ago (by Bible records). It also disproves that living beings do not change. Individuals do not change but populations do change over time.
It certainly does NOT disprove the existence of a God.
I would also like to remind adamant believers of any religion that the Bible and all other holy books were written by humans, not the gods they speak of.

 

[CrystalShadow]

However, I do not think everyone should be forced to believe in evolution, if people don't want to, why make them?

Belief has no place in matters of science. If something can be demonstrated to be true, then you either accept it as truth, or you are a fool.

I think some problems stem from calling evolution a theory. To people who don't understand it, it gives the impression that there's still a good chance it could be wrong. While there are missing links here and there, evolution has a pretty sound case.

Exactly. People don't understand what a scientific theory really is. I've talked to people who thought that, if Evolution was really as rock-steady as it is, it would be a Law. It does not work like that.

A theory does not become a law. They describe two different things. For (extremely simplified) example:

Law of Gravity: Things fall. Period. Immutable.

Theory of Gravity: Things fall because...

I always hate having to explain that. And not only because the only example I can easily use is not a very good one.

That's not really accurate either. Principally, there's no such thing as a scientific 'law' in the way you're describing, because science is fundamentally incapable of proving something to be true.
This gets to the heart of what science is as a philosophy, and not everyone agrees with it in practice, but what it comes down to is that science can only disprove things, not prove them.

So, things like the law of gravity, and the second law of thermodynamics are NOT immutable, set in stone, or beyond dispute.
They're simply so fundamental, and have withstood scrutiny for so long that it is exceedingly unlikely that they are incorrect. (and any evidence that they are is generally assumed to be due to experimental error or unaccounted for forces rather than the 'law' itself being wrong.)

The reason for this is self-evident.

How many experimental results does it take to 'prove' that things always fall when dropped?

- You can't. You can get a million results. A billion... More. And you still wouldn't know for certain that the law always holds.

How many results (assuming there aren't measurement errors involved) does it take to disprove it?

- Just one. A single contradictory result shows that something is false. Of course, in practice you would need to verify this, and you'd then be left trying to explain what's going on, but in principle, one result is all you need.

And this of perhaps goes a long way to explaining why the most critical aspect of a scientific hypothesis is falsifiability.

What would it take to prove that it's wrong?

Anyway... You probably know all that, so I don't know why I felt the need to point it out... >_<

-----
As for evolution, one of the subtler, but nonetheless quite frustrating things about what a majority of people's understanding of it is conflating evolution with 'progress'.

You see it in such statements as being 'more evolved', and people that seem to think it's something akin to the levelling system in RPG's.
Or, that we are evolving 'into' something more advanced, or that we'll keep on getting more intelligent, or 'better' than we were...

And what, exactly, does devolution mean? it's non-sensical. Even if we became identical to chimpanzees again, it'd still be evolution, not devolution.

Or for that matter, that 'survival of the fittest' implies that one specific set of traits some people have is inherently better than others (and seemingly remains so in any and all circumstances)

I guess that gets back to how humans somehow think they're the best thing ever a lot of the time, but it really misses the point.

The problem is, all of this implies evolution has a goal. Some end condition it's aiming for. Some design to it.
Which simply isn't true.

A virus is no less evolved than a human. It's just different.
Survival of the fittest is entirely relative, and just about anything could in principle be the 'fittest' if the circumstances we live in change.

More importantly, the only 'goal' of evolution is survival itself. This means if a species evolves, it's become better able to survive in whatever circumstances it is confronted with.
If those circumstances change, so will the species.

But what that change will involve, will depend entirely on what the new environment is like. NOT on some pre-ordained plan to make things more complicated or 'better' than they were before.

We could get stupider, weaker, smaller... And any number of other things we would consider 'negative', and still it would be evolution, and depending on circumstance, might even make us 'fitter' as a species...

 

[Titan Buttons]

I'm not entirely sure about America but it may be the way in which children are taught, or possible not taught, about what the theory of evolution is because it confilcts with the religious beliefs of the parents. Also, what exactly is Intelligent design?

Intelligent design is the religious argument that something created everything the way its designed, such as the way we evolve and change as well as why we think this way and grow.
It is religion conforming partly to science and it is in the situation where science cannot comment, which is where I believe religion belongs.

I do agree with you about religion belonging where science cannot comment, while not disregarding science.
Now knowing what Intelligent design is, I find it to be a complete condradiction to Christianity, as it is a firm belief that God gave us free will. How can we have free will if our lives are planned out?

 

[AngloDoom]

The environment is not considered in evolution, though. A monkey in one environment will not mutate differently than a monkey in another: it's just that those mutations will thrive in different areas. You can say the environment 'guides' the evolution, but that's not really 'guiding', that's being shaped. It's like saying that if I cram my foot into a too small shoe it's being 'guided' into growing crippled bones.

"A monkey in one environment will NOT mutate differently than a monkey in another"
Well firstly being in an area with more radiation would possibly make a monkey to mutate more, and thus increases the chance of genetic difference.

The guiding hand analysis is debatable mostly due to perspective, as with the shoe comment "if I cram my foot into a too small shoe it's being 'guided' into growing crippled bones" this is taking a negative stance (not the best example).

um I will try a more neutral example.
If I poured a gel like substance on a "perfectly flat" (near impossible to find one) It would pool out in a blob, however if I poured it into a shoe, it would be "guided" by the shoes shape.

While your analogy was fine it's just it was designed from a negative point of view.

The radiation example is a strange one, though. That's effectively cellular damage and isn't part of the discussion. That's an anomaly when it comes to evolution: I'm talking about the same monkey that mated with the same other money was about to birth a new generation of monkeys. Whether that monkey birthed them in a desert, an ocean, or in space they'd still be born the same way and have the same genes. Moving something from one area to another won't change the way it's genes are arranged.

Agreed that my analogy was a negative one, but it was intended to be more biological. The only one that came to mind was forms of dis-figuration. Another example could be callouses from rough terrain, but that's not a form of evolution - that is adaptation. Evolution is something pre-determined in the womb by the way the two parent's (or singular parent's) cells are arranged. The environment no more changes the way the animal will mutate (with exceptions such as mutagens in the area) than the company it keeps or it's favourite colour.

 

[bad rider]

I am a student at a faculty of Biology and I am amazed by the number of people that either have studied evolutionism (or at least heard of it) and just refuse to believe despite the HUGE quantity of evidence that supports it, or people that have not studied evolutionism but still think it is wrong because "that's not what my parents taught me to believe in, they taught to believe in God".

Now I am not saying religion is bad (in fact I believe humans need religion still) but I am getting tired of people refusing to look at evidence. I am also tired of people who believe the local newspaper is a reliable source of scientific information (especially when it comes to the sciences that make up biology).

If religion is to be taught in schools than evolutionism should also be taught. I believe the only reason that is not happening right now is because "some people" think they clash and they favor giving young children the traditional explanation for existence. Creationism and Evolutionism DO NOT CLASH. Evolutionism only disproves the fact that all forms of life that live today were created by some all-powerful being about 6000 years ago (by Bible records). It also disproves that living beings do not change. Individuals do not change but populations do change over time.
It certainly does NOT disprove the existence of a God.
I would also like to remind adamant believers of any religion that the Bible and all other holy books were written by humans, not the gods they speak of.

This thread astounds me. Admittedly I'm an Englishman, however I have never come across a creationist. I've heard creationism as an argument, but never as anything other than as a purely educational tool or as a "there might have been a god that started off the evolutionary process" though the latter may not strictly fit as creationism.

You know what you Yanks need. A coin with Darwin on it. I assume that's (probably) what's done it over here.

 

[weker]

I'm not entirely sure about America but it may be the way in which children are taught, or possible not taught, about what the theory of evolution is because it confilcts with the religious beliefs of the parents. Also, what exactly is Intelligent design?

Intelligent design is the religious argument that something created everything the way its designed, such as the way we evolve and change as well as why we think this way and grow.
It is religion conforming partly to science and it is in the situation where science cannot comment, which is where I believe religion belongs.

I do agree with you about religion belonging where science cannot comment, while not disregarding science.
Now knowing what Intelligent design is, I find it to be a complete condradiction to Christianity, as it is a firm belief that God gave us free will. How can we have free will if our lives are planned out?

Well I am yet to find a Christianity who follows his religion in full (which from my understanding is a bit silly, your devoting your life to the religion to avoid going to hell and your doing PART of what is says, which would suggest you might still end up going their)

ID is the concept that a being created everything in the way it is, allowing Evolution to still be allowed.
In other words A being created us as organism which had the potential to become humans.

 

[Abengoshis]

Aha, but I believe apes evolved from monkeys! After all, we still have tailbones!

Huge fallacies are huge. We are an evolved Ape, therefore we evolved from previous Apes. End of discussion. Where THEY came from is an incredibly varied and ultimately pointless question. Otherwise that argument can loop in on itself until you end up with simple shrew like things(i.e. the first mammals, which ALL mammals evolved from), birds(which pre-date them), fish, then bacteria.

Excuse me I DID NOT say that. You've quoted someone else then used my name. I'd appreciate it if you removed that.

The fact of the matter is, whether or not you believe that the Earth was made 6000 years ago or that we evolved from monkeys doesn't really matter much in life.

Just to be annoying, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We're apes, we evolved from previous apes, not previous monkeys.

Aha, but I believe apes evolved from monkeys! After all, we still have tailbones!

Also it matters a lot to medicine if you're that kind of scientist.

Does it? A stomach is still a stomach, whether or not you believe it is the process of millions of years of mutations and adaptations or something created in a day by God. Where you believe it came from does not change what you know it is. I've never seen a creationist deny the existence of genetic conditions or diseases, though if there are any I'm pretty sure they are the tiniest minority.

Actually I don't think they did, they split from the same ancestor, we didn't evolve from them.

That is what I actually said.

And to answer that guys second question, without an understanding of evolution we probably wouldn't have the advanced medicines we have today to fight diseases.

 

[AngloDoom]

But what that change will involve, will depend entirely on what the new environment is like. NOT on some pre-ordained plan to make things more complicated or 'better' than they were before.

Heya there, sorry to sort of single you out but I saw your post above mine. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have said up until this point here. Evolution, as far as I understand it, does not take environment into account as such.

That is to say, moving an animal from one place to another won't make it, or any of it's relatives, morph to fit that environment. It is simply random mutations some of which happen to be more suited to that environment. By saying the animals adapts to it's environment is saying that it is driving it's own evolution with an intelligent design.

Obviously, I could have misinterpreted what you said and that's what you could have meant, but I just wanted to discuss that one point.