The misinterpretation of evolution

[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.

 

[mrF00bar]

I would just like to point out that the theory of evolution has never been proven, yes there are different finds which lead us to believe that what we understand of evolution today, is what actually happened. Again, it has not been proven but I'm not saying it can't be true in some way or another.

 

[BrassButtons]

EVERYTHING in science is a theory.

No. Scientific theories are theories, all other things in science are not theories.

The word 'theory' in science does not mean 'an idea that has not been proven beyond all shadow of a doubt.' Rather, a theory is something which explains why observed phenomena happen the way they do. Laws, meanwhile, merely describe said phenomena. Usually multiple laws and facts are explained by a theory.

Evolution will probably always be a theory, as it can not be 100% proven through hard evidence.

See above. Any scientific theory that is proven 100% will remain a theory, because there's nothing else for it to be.

Additionally the core problem that stops evolution from becoming a theorum is the problem of missing links, there are thousands of them, and finding them all is almost impossible.

That's really only a problem for people who are dead set on pretending that any minor gap in our knowledge is enough to completely topple the theory. Having gaps in the fossil record in no way weakens the case for evolution.

Which is a shame because it is (in my opinion) the best explanatory theory we have.

It's the only theory we have.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

I thought this was going to be a thread about the "missing link" (between chimps and humans, of course) misconception. I'm slightly disappointed that it's just a thread about a lack of belief in evolution. The main problem is it's teaching as an alternative to Creationism is not mandatory (and probably won't be for some time to come :/).

I honestly thought the "missing link" argument had long been proven wrong because of limiting factors: Anthropologists may not have found that missing link yet as there is so much of the earth to search through. Also because evolution takes so much time and so many generations of species, every generation would technically be the "missing link". Finally, I think we have already found that "missing link" between humans and great apes.

Yes, I know, that's why it's a misconception...

 

[weker]

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.

Evolution is something pre-determined in the womb by the way the two parent's

"effectively cellular damage and isn't part of the discussion." It is part of mutation and is therefore relevant, as you proposed the environment doesn't effect evolution. Again "cellular damage" seems to just be a choice of perspectives.

"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"
Evolution is not instantaneous and happens over time, in the situation you have made clearer now, evolution is not taking a noticeable effect due to the short time frame you have set.

"Evolution is something pre-determined in the womb by the way the two parent's" again evolution is not instant, as it happens over long periods of time were these "mutated" members of the species breed to become a separate species.

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.

Yes I do believe you think Evolution can be used to define a change between two generations.
Evolution occurs over many generations, and is why most organisms will adapt (adaption is part of evolution like mutation and natural selection) by evolving into a more suited organism.

 

[Ampersand]

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.

Do you know what evidence is? From the way you worded this I doesn't seem like you do.

 

[weker]

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.

Do you know what evidence is? From the way you worded this I doesn't seem like you do.

If the question of evidence is called into question the shouldn't the term proof be called into question.

If something we have tested occurs 500 billion times yes, we can assume the answer will be yes, HOWEVER we have no way of knowing that after 500 billion the next one will be no until we have tested it ofc

 

[AngloDoom]

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.

Evolution is something pre-determined in the womb by the way the two parent's

"effectively cellular damage and isn't part of the discussion." It is part of mutation and is therefore relevant, as you proposed the environment doesn't effect evolution. Again "cellular damage" seems to just be a choice of perspectives.

"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"
Evolution is not instantaneous and happens over time, in the situation you have made clearer now, evolution is not taking a noticeable effect due to the short time frame you have set.

"Evolution is something pre-determined in the womb by the way the two parent's" again evolution is not instant, as it happens over long periods of time were these "mutated" members of the species breed to become a separate species.

Of course, I didn't mean to say that one day a monkey gave birth to a human - I meant that the changes were determined at birth. Sorry for the confusion there. Of course, these changes are often tiny and need a huge length of time and breeding to get the effect of future years. However, the environment makes no different to the developing creature inside the mother's womb. Creatures in a certain environment would not start birthing animals more fit to that said environment. The chance of our lovely little monkey example giving birth to a webbed-hand monkey is just as likely in the ocean as it is in a desert: it's just that the webbed-hand monkey may survive better in the ocean and obviously give birth to other adorable webbed-hand little monkeys. This would not, however, guarantee the monkey to become a fish in later life. It's just as likely to evolve in a way, through future generations, to lose those webbed hands as it is to get larger webs to swim better.

What I'm trying to clarify is that the environment does not change the ways in which the cells mutate (with exceptions such as radiation and mutagens in the environment), but the way in which those mutated offspring may or may not survive. A creature will not change to fit it's environment - it will change naturally and if it's lucky it'll suit it's environment.

I hope that clarifies my point?

 

[Something Amyss]

Most people who believe in evolution are not trying to prove Christianity wrong. Unless you are taking literally every word of the bible as literal truth, they are not mutually exclusive. One is the how, the other is the why.

Not to mention, people often slop other theories into evolution when pitting it against Christianity. Evolution does not even address where life came from originally (abiogenesis) or how the universe was created (Among which lies the Big Bang theory).

It's pretty straightforward and really doesn't have to prove Christianity wrong in the first place. But people do frequently make it far more complex than is necessary.

 

[zehydra]

"completely infallible"

nope. But for all practical purposes, sure.

 

[weker]

What I'm trying to clarify is that the environment does not change the ways in which the cells mutate (with exceptions such as radiation and mutagens in the environment)

I agree

but the way in which those mutated offspring may or may not survive.

I agree again, the environment will have a role in which offspring survive

A creature will not change to fit it's environment - it will change naturally and if it's lucky it'll suit it's environment.

"will not change to fit it's environment - it will change naturally" can you explain in more depth this part. It WILL NOT change yet it WILL change naturally? you said it will not change.

Again our debate spiked off environment effecting evolution. The environment plays a governing factor in Natural Selection, which is part of evolution, and therefore environment effects evolution through natural selection.