The misinterpretation of evolution

[AngloDoom]

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.

Ah, there's where the confusion lies. I'm saying the environment will not change the way the baby is born or the genetics it happens to get smashed together and made out with. The baby will change because of the genetics of it's parents and those alone. Same parents different environment will still result in the same baby.

I'm saying genetics won't tailor-make a creature to fit it's environment, which you seem to support as well.

In case there's any confusion:

I agree that environment does change an entire species of animals due to the fact that it will make certain mutations within the species more beneficial than others. However, the environment will not make certain mutations happen by itself.

 

[Deacon Cole]

The simple fact of the matter is intelligent design has no more place in science class than Holocaust denial has in history class.

 

[weker]

I agree that environment does change an entire species of animals due to the fact that it will make certain mutations within the species more beneficial than others. However, the environment will not make certain mutations happen by itself.

Good to see were on the same page but i'm still hunting for the words "Environment EFFECTS Evolution" which you were hovering over XD

 

[TheDooD]

Aliens put use here. God made us in his image. We evolved from ooze, then plants, then fish, then reptiles, then basic mammals, and finally monkeys. Everything was a freak accident. We have infinite choice. Everything in our lives are planed out. There's a higher power controlling us. Augmentation defies Gods image eventhough it's possible to save millions with it's uses.

So have I covered everything about this thread?

 

[AngloDoom]

I agree that environment does change an entire species of animals due to the fact that it will make certain mutations within the species more beneficial than others. However, the environment will not make certain mutations happen by itself.

Good to see were on the same page but i'm still hunting for the words "Environment EFFECTS Evolution" which you were hovering over XD

Ah, I see what you mean now. Environment does indeed affect evolution, it just doesn't directly affect genetics.

We did it! Together! =D

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I've heard that some schools in America are not allowed to teach it.
Which is completely ridiculous.

I think the most people (who have been taught it properly) understand the general concept- the way that creatures gradually adapt over many generations etc, even if they don't understand the details.

The problem comes when people radically misunderstand it. I've seen clips of people saying things like 'how can you believe that monkeys just started walkin' one day and turned into people!' What? No-one said that. Gahhh

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

TL;DR

OK, clearly we need an expert opinion here. Seriously, you guys get too much of this man from me...

 

[michael87cn]

You can puff up the theory of evolution to be as factual a theory as much as you like, you can call it things like infallible and proven, tested, etc. But in the end it boils down to this:

People think (not know for certain) it's correct, based on what they've 'done' 'seen' and 'heard', via other people.

It can't be proven like the theory of gravity can, because no one has ever witnessed a creature evolve. Humans within recorded history have never evolved.

The Theory of evolution still requires an impossible miracle to have occurred, and in my mind that makes it a belief more than a fact. It won't be factual until we can go back in time and see the big bang happen, or in 10-100 million years if we still have documented history and can compare our 'evolved' selves to those of old.

The big bang states that matter created itself from nothing, matterless energy was formed from nothingness, and the entire universe was the result... also that life was the result of nothingness, and that giant rocks colliding with each other somehow produces life.

Go outside and bang two rocks together, you could do it for the rest of your life and you wouldn't create a new form of life... hell... take a spaceship to outerspace and try to make it authentic if you want... you still won't get life from that... just a lot of destruction (especially on the planetary scale)

I've always found it funny that evolution is supposed to take millions of years, conveniently large amount of time, no? When a human being can develop from nothing more than small proteins and nutrients into a 6ft tall mass of flesh in a matter of 20 years.

Surely after the couple thousand years of recorded history we could have evolved by now at least at a small level.

Read into this however you want: think i'm religious or creationist or something.

The truth is I know that one thing throughout our entire history has remained true..

People have always thought that their age was the modern age and that their 'science' was 100% correct and "infallible".

Entire civilizations have risen and fallen thinking that the world could not improve any more than it had.

We think that today, just because we have the power of electricity (really, the power source behind all of our 'improvements') that we're special and that we have it all correct.

We're wrong.

Everything is still a theory, and it's all based on the limitations of the incorrect human mind, biased and self-interested, it doesn't surprise me in the least that there are men that can think themselves their own creator.

Regardless it doesn't matter, because whether or not science/the theory of evolution is all correct and all true, it is leading into a bad end for humanity, and those who think it will be used for the greater good of all are sadly mistaken... the thing you cling to with all your hopes and dreams will one day destroy millions, possibly billions of lives.

Science, power and the human ego.

 

[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.

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

I'm pretty sure that we can say beyond reasonable doubt that the 500 billion and first test will be positive as well. :-/

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

I don't think the issue is that people don't understand evolution, it's more that they refuse to acknowledge it because it clashes so violently with thier beliefs.

Evolution itself is fairly simple;

To quote Dara O'Brien - 'Lots of random stuff just happened, and then the useful ones just hung around'

 

[SilentCom]

Who says that creationsim completely excludes evolution? Evolution speaks of organisms evolving but does not explain how existence came about. Also, it is bias ignorance you display for stating evolution as being corrupted by religion and being the norm. People have different views and for the things that we can't understand, we are forced to find some kind of belief. Frankly, human beings aren't defined by our knowledge but instead by our ignorance.

 

[kouriichi]

I believe we were created by something beyond our comprehension.

I could call it "god" just as much as i could call it "fate", "luck", "metaphysical-aliens", or "The flying spaghetti monster".

The chances of our planet being in perfect distance of the sun to have constant liquid water on the surface, have life develop on it from thoughtless chains of atoms, to develop the perfect oxygen atmosphere and then on top of that, for us to NOT be destroyed by one of the countless (literally countless) meteors hurling through space is beyond the realm of "just happening".

And Creationism isnt the belief it happened in a matter of days. Its just that a supernatural being started it. And yes, "evolution" did most of the work after the foundation was laid.

Life gets wiped out pretty commonly on earth, and it's 'perfect oxygen levels' haven't always been here, only after a major extinction. The point is that the earth isn't and wasn't made for our perfect standards. It's literally a coincidence that the conditions were right for life to begin and adapt to the constant hazards. Do you really think that in the universe, with countless galaxies, unthinkable amounts of stars and mind-boggling amounts of planets that there wouldn't be at least one planet with the right requirements for life to evolve from nothing more than a chain of acids?

Lol. I mean for us to exist.
Yes, its all scientifically explainable.
But that doesnt make it anyless random. What are the chances we, HUMANS sit here to day?
The chances of life existing on a planet alone are so astronomical its not even worth knowing.

Its not that it all happened. Its that it all happened perfectly, for us to exist. If the planet were 10 degrees hotter when the protoplasmic creatures were first forming, we might not even exist. The evolution of them could be so radically different we wouldnt even resemble humans.

The "coincidence" of it all happening one after another after another for billions of years is what makes it so..... unbelievable. That everything is happened the way it should for us to be here now.

Yes it did. You're not actually making a point here, just reinforcing how baffled you are by the statistics and the odds. If the planet were ten degrees hotter, then life may not even still exist in this hypothetical earth by now, but the point is when you compare it to the astronomical, unimaginably horribly gigantic amount of planets in the universe, it seems more probable that we exist. No reason to run off needing a divine reason for it. We're the result of pretty much just physics.

Well thats the thing about it though. For us to exist, an uncountable amount of coincidences would have to occur. The odds of it happening are so outrageous, there is no number for it.

I'm having trouble understanding your argument. You're saying that the chances are so low that you just can't believe it. But, the chances for life on planets is also extremely high, due to the sheer number of planets in the universe. It's inevitable that a planet will have just the perfect amount of everything. Earth just happened to be that planet. We know this because, well, we're alive.

Well the chance for life on planets isnt high, because almost no planets have the ability to support life.

xD But yes, its inevitable that a planet would have life on it. But then the chances of it evolving and becoming intelligent life. How many species have been on this planet? How many of which have wrote books, formed government, and built spaceships to take us off the planet?

As i said. Yes, its BOUND to happen sometime. But that doesnt make it ANY less amazing. We only know of one other planet that can "possibly" support life. And even then, chances are it will never be intelligent.

 

[Ritter315]

Ok heres the thing: The idea that evolution has been proven...IS a misconception about evolution. The problem is that evolutionists tend to think that if you dont agree with the entire spectrum of naturalist origins of the universe, than you're a creationist, ID nut or you're just stupid. Not at all.

Here's the facts as I and many others understand them: 1 If it ever DID take place, it isnt happening now (As far as anyone can demonstrate) 2. The odds of it happening (or happened) are VERY VERY slim. Its very unlikely and not many evolutionists will admit that. And even if you contest that its not unlikely than you have a bigger problem, because if the odds are good than we would have seen CONCRETE evidence of evolution.

The only part of evolution that has the data to support itself is natural nelection and the resulting speciation that comes from it. Basically, no amount of ash on a tree has ever turned a moth, dark or light, into a bee or a bird (I.E no amount of adaptation to envirnment has ever caused a species to change into a higher form of life)
Bacteria mutation is also evidence for evolution but the problem is: They've never evolved. And if you say because it takes millions of years for ALL evolution to occur heres your problem: Mutations only happen from generation to generation and if a bacteria generation is 20 minutes and a human generation is 20 years than...well do the math. And we've been watching bacteria in micro-scopes for about 200 years and we've seen NO advancement whatsoever aside from adaptation to envirnments.

Can you see why some people just havnt bought evolution yet? Thats why I'm sick of people assuming that those who dont believe in evolution are somehow inferior or stupid. If that was the case, we wouldnt be able to even make an arguement.
As for schools and media: I've NEVER seen a blantently Creationist-supporting media...EVER I've never seen it. If you can point out some specific fine, but I personally have never seen creationist defend or even evolution argued against in schools, media, movies (Paul is the best example for the insulting of the Intelligent design movement without being connected to the plot, that was an intention insult on creationists) anywhere at all really.

Most peoples views: Why dont we just teach the truth? We dont KNOW how life got started, why is that so threatening?

 

[Freeze_L]

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.

Intelligent design is a philosophical answer to a scientific question. All it is is an explanation of evolution not a separate theory.

But yes pepole have the right to disagree. However it does not make them right because in the end of the day, regardless of what you choose to think, the world is not nearly as subjective as we would like to think.

Also the definition of a Theory (in scientific terms at least) is a hypothesis that has been tested over and over to the point that has become accepted as true because there is no reason (no evidence) against it and plenty of evidence for it.

Sorry if this came out a little bit more angry then i intended. This is a thread about misconceptions

 

[DRIIV]

You can puff up the theory of evolution to be as factual a theory as much as you like, you can call it things like infallible and proven, tested, etc. But in the end it boils down to this:

It can't be proven like the theory of gravity can, because no one has ever witnessed a creature evolve. Humans within recorded history have never evolved.

Drug resistance bacteria, and bacteria that can eat nylon.

The Theory of evolution still requires an impossible miracle to have occurred, and in my mind that makes it a belief more than a fact. It won't be factual until we can go back in time and see the big bang happen, or in 10-100 million years if we still have documented history and can compare our 'evolved' selves to those of old.

The big bang states that matter created itself from nothing, matterless energy was formed from nothingness, and the entire universe was the result... also that life was the result of nothingness, and that giant rocks colliding with each other somehow produces life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtpsunRYIs&feature=related

Go outside and bang two rocks together, you could do it for the rest of your life and you wouldn't create a new form of life... hell... take a spaceship to outerspace and try to make it authentic if you want... you still won't get life from that... just a lot of destruction (especially on the planetary scale)

Who says life came from rock colliding?

We think that today, just because we have the power of electricity (really, the power source behind all of our 'improvements') that we're special and that we have it all correct.

We're wrong.

Everything is still a theory, and it's all based on the limitations of the incorrect human mind, biased and self-interested, it doesn't surprise me in the least that there are men that can think themselves their own creator.

Regardless it doesn't matter, because whether or not science/the theory of evolution is all correct and all true, it is leading into a bad end for humanity, and those who think it will be used for the greater good of all are sadly mistaken... the thing you cling to with all your hopes and dreams will one day destroy millions, possibly billions of lives.

Science, power and the human ego.

Evolution is a scientific theory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14&feature=related (scientific method. Evolution being used to help with the creation of drugs seems to be used for the greater good.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Don't mind me. Just going to point out why this guy fails at (evolutionary) biology forever.

The only part of evolution that has the data to support itself is natural nelection and the resulting speciation that comes from it.

Eeeh. Yes. That is evolution. What more do you want the theory to do? Wipe your bottom and tie your shoelaces?

Basically, no amount of ash on a tree has ever turned a moth, dark or light, into a bee or a bird (I.E no amount of adaptation to envirnment has ever caused a species to change into a higher form of life)

One: that's not what the theory of evolution says.
Two: why would a moth turn into a bee or a bird?
Three: The word 'turned' implies a short amount of time. I do hope you know that evolution takes hundreds upon hundreds of generations?

Bacteria mutation is also evidence for evolution but the problem is: They've never evolved. And if you say because it takes millions of years for ALL evolution to occur heres your problem: Mutations only happen from generation to generation and if a bacteria generation is 20 minutes and a human generation is 20 years than...well do the math. And we've been watching bacteria in micro-scopes for about 200 years and we've seen NO advancement whatsoever aside from adaptation to envirnments.

Wow... So what you're saying is: I have never seen bacteria suddenly become any multicellular lifeform. According to the evolutionary timeline it took about 800 million years from the first prokaryotic lifeforms to cyanobactiera (ie: bacteria capable of photosynthesis). To get to the point of multicellular organisms took about a billion years from that point.

So no, you won't see these bacteria grow legs and walk out of the lab in 200 years. Just the idea of it is laughable, and shows that you know very little of the subject.


Apart from that: only under the best of circumstances can these bacteria have generation times of 20 minutes. In nature it takes about thrice that time.

Can you see why some people just havnt bought evolution yet? Thats why I'm sick of people assuming that those who dont believe in evolution are somehow inferior or stupid. If that was the case, we wouldnt be able to even make an arguement.

And you can't. It's not that I believe that these people are inferior or stupid (though it's likely), but their believes are. And I treat them with very little respect because they try to force their ideas onto the minds of children.

And what creationists, or rather: intelligent designees (?), because I have no quarrel with creationists in general, are doing is not having a discussion. Their tactics are trying to undermine the theory of evolution using false arguments, made up facts and name-calling.

As for schools and media: I've NEVER seen a blantently Creationist-supporting media...EVER I've never seen it. If you can point out some specific fine, but I personally have never seen creationist defend or even evolution argued against in schools, media, movies (Paul is the best example for the insulting of the Intelligent design movement without being connected to the plot, that was an intention insult on creationists) anywhere at all really.

Not much to say on this. I don't live in the USA.

Most peoples views: Why dont we just teach the truth? We dont KNOW how life got started, why is that so threatening?

.... Derp....

Evolution says nothing on how life started. Now, I'd like you to just read the wikipedia article on evolution. It's incomplete and wrong in some places, but it has the gist of it. Which you do not.

 

[Warforger]

There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

Yes there is. Evolution has mountains upon mountains of evidence to back it up; Creationism does not have any.

Denying Evolution is real is like denying the Romans are real.

 

[Asita]

I'm pretty sure that I can shoot my mouth off about any subject I like researched or not so your first sentiment is null and void. Now if you actually knew anything about science you would see how funny your first statement I commented on was because you would know that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

Wrong. It's true that science can't prove anything, at least not in the same sense used in mathematics, as everything is subjective to new data. However, the falsifiability of a given suject is a key criteria for its scientific status, making the 'nothing can be disproved' part of your statement false in anything other than a semantic sense that relies on the impossibility of proving a negative instead of the more utlitarian meaning of the data not lining up with it.

 

[Asita]

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record

I doubt the discovery of these things would effect the theory of evolution at all, as it has been tried and tested so many many times to actually allow it to be described as a scientific theory (one of the highest awards in science) Evolution is proven in the same way that we know water boils and we need oxygen to breath (with a few less constant reminders )
The only reason Evolution is questioned in such severity today is due to it contradicting the Bible but don't get me started on the amount of contradictions and hypocrisy that comes from there.

I'm aware of Evolution's status. What I listed (as I thought I explained later in the post, but I guess not sufficiently) were hypothetical models that would falsify the theory as we know it today. A static fossil record (which again: We're pretty sure we lack) would throw virtually all data out the window by heavily suggesting that life existed in its present form for millenia. True chimeras would cancel out much of genetics and indicate either 'true' species (by virtue of mishmashes like the Chimera itself having traits like the head of a goat...another head of a lion, a snake tail (alternatively, a tail that is a snake)), or damaging the conclusions about breedable organisms (in the case of mermaids, allowing hybridization at the level of Phyla). And a mechanism that prevented mutations past a certain point in a given population would ostensibly prohibit speciation thus limiting evolution's capacity to explain the existence of life. Now, as I stated priorly, we can say with ever greater certainty that these things don't exist outside of hypothetical examples, but they act as conditions that make evolution falsifiable, which is itself a criteria for scientific status.