The misinterpretation of evolution

[evilneko]

-snip-

Quite simply ID has no predictive power and is not falsifiable, these two alone make it unscientific. ID is thinly-veiled creationism. Whether it's creation by aliens or a deity is irrelevant.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

First off in a thread like this you should explain to everyone what the proper definition of evolution is if you don't want to cause any further confusion.

Personally i don't experience much trouble with people not understanding evolution. I've yet to encounter anyone who wholeheartedly believes that god created us as we are and that nothing else has played a part since the dawn of time.

I'd say it's just a religious issue and leave it at that. Plain and simple.

I don't understand why we can't all win. You can be a religious person and simply say: God CAN choose to use evolution as the vehicle for his intelligent design. It'd just shift the notion of what ID is a bit, and it wouldn't oppose it. Religion seems to be gearing up to be more in line with science anyway, it's just a matter of letting them get over their stubbornness enough to explain that a few things can be reworded a trifle and they're all still right.

[I hate religion. But I respect people's right to believe whatever the hell helps them to go on day to day.]

You can say that all you want, but i doubt religion and science will ever come to an agreement no matter how trivial a matter it would be to do so. Religious people have a tendency to look to one book and what's not in that book isn't true. So i'm glad we're seeing many new branches of religion, no matter how small they are. Perhaps one day we'll have some sane religion out there, but it's not within my foreseeable future.

 

[kouriichi]

Another major misintepretation of evolution is that it is a random process, which it is not at all.

Sorry for the quotefest, but there's lots to reply to and I don't want to flood the thread with one post for each reply.

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

No-one is forced to believe anything they don't want to. The question is what should children be taught in science class. Answer: science!

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.

I'll let creationism be taught in science class just as soon as you start teaching evolution in church.

Individuals do not evolve, the group does.

Actually it is only genes that are selected for and against, and the perceived evolution of individuals and groups stems from that. Of course selection as we know it couldn't happen without a group, but that is not the same as saying it is groups that evolve.

I'd say to get a definition from a biology teacher or find a reputable website to find the definition. Any definition I would give would be either too complex (and I honestly lack the patience) or so simplistic it would be factually incorrect.

Natural selection says "things which are better at reproducing will reproduce more." So it's nothing more than a tautology; it is true by definition. I do not understand how anyone could disagree with it. Furthermore, "traits are passed down hereditarily." The case for that assertion is fairly strong (kids look like their parents, and with DNA we can literally observe how this works). That's all it is. And evolution, then, is the theory that the living things we see in the world today have arrived at their present state by natural selection.

It is the simplest way of explaining why life looks the way it does, and the fossil record bears it out, and we can still see natural selection in action today, making species look different from the way they did fifty or a hundred years ago.

its worth noting that the ignorance surrounding science subjects like this and general anti-intellectualism is seriously harming Americas economic strength.

This.

As far as I know Europe has similar religious hindrances, though Catholic instead of Protestant based.

Pretty sure we do not teach intelligent design in science class.

if it can't be tested or observed, it isn't even a hypothesis. Maybe 'assertion' or 'idea' is closer to the mark.

Or 'guess'. Or 'wish'.

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.

And the religious are predisposed to understand it that way as they are so used to making wild guesses about the nature of the universe.

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

Imagine yourself as a puddle of water in a depression in the ground. You are saying "how unlikely it is that this depression in the ground is just the right shape for me." The Earth suits us very well because it is where we developed. If we happened to develop on another planet, then that planet would suit us just as well.

What are the chances we, HUMANS sit here to day?

Your argument that the world as we see it is so unlikely that it can only have been created by God, can just as easily apply to God himself. What are the chances that God, an infinitely fantastical entity, sits here today? Probability doesn't work as an argument in either case.

I think God guided evolution

Looks like you're so close to accepting the laws of nature and evolution but are too scared to let go of a god to make the whole thing explainable to yourself.

Like the man who thinks the images on his TV screen are created by fairies, until he has it all explained to him, radio signals, image encoding, modulation, liquid crystal displays. Then he says OK, I understand it all now, but surely there are still one or two fairies in there somewhere.

The word Evolution implies something gets better.

No, the word evolve simply means for one thing to develop from another, through some process. It comes from the Latin evolvere, meaning to unfold from. It is only through the misunderstanding that evolution is a process of improvement that evolve has recently come to imply improvement.

Except i dont believe in god.... :?
And i dont believe he created it.
I believe this supernatural force/being helped shape and protect it, but not just "poof its made".
As ive said in my earlier posts. For all i know, it could be aliens. It could be "luck", tipping in our favor. It could be "fate", making sure that the the slightest changes happen the way they need to.

The odds of us existing, as we are now is so fantastical, the number cant even be recognized. I believe something beyond our comprehension helped. Not "God" or "Buddha" or whatever you want to call it. Its something beyond our comprehension that just exists. Its not omnipotent, nor does it make our decisions of us.
It isnt always right, and it can possibly be wrong. Its ability to be right and wrong is even unknown. It may not even be sentient. It might just "be there", making sure things happen the way they should.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

How is it science? What research has been done on the subject? What peer reviewed journals have had entries on it? What major scientific establishments have acknowledged it as a science? It is just one big argument from ignorance. It isn't science.
Michael Behe, the leading scientist behind it, has acknowledged that you would have to completely redefine the definition of "science" for ID to even try to qualify.

Observation of the world by Thomas Aquinas had him conclude that nature always moves to the best result. The only way to do this, is for some sort of intelligence to be behind it. Now this was in the 13th century, so he may have had an unclear picture. However, in 1802, William Paley made the same conclusion. Stating that symbiosis by freak chance is farfetched at best (think a million to one for each 10,000+ symbiotic life forms on Earth). Is it possible? Yes, but not highly likely. Even Charles Darwin had nothing against Intelligent Design, he just was trying to see if there was an alternative. The research has been done just as long as for evolution.

It gets scientific acknowledgement from the following: Discovery Institute, ISCID, and PSSI. I excluded all organizations created for ID, though Discovery Institute might have been for that. It's not entirely clear to me. But ISCID and PSSI had nothing to do with ID until they chose to be. Didn't take me long to find them, either.

People and ideas pre-1859 can be discarded. Or do you also think that a person supporting geocentricism pre-heliocentricism is also valid?
The Discovery Institute is not a valid scientific organization.
Great documentary on the Dover trial and the debate as a whole.
PSSI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_for_Scientific_Integrity
Discovery Institute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
ISCID:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Complexity,_Information,_and_Design
Try again.
Or you could just accept that Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory.

 

[DannyHale09]

Just because a theory is old it does not give it anymore weight.
It should still have to provide the same amount of proof evolution has.

Stupid fucking creationists.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

snip

One correction: The judge destroyed Intelligent Design. He left no doubt about it.

 

[Ritter315]

Alleged_Alec: "why this guy fails at (evolutionary) biology forever" - Ignoring the obvious childishness in that statement.

"One: that's not what the theory of evolution says" - So the theory of evolution does NOT say that envirnmental differences lead to adaptation? Yes it does. Its part of survival, its what allows for more mutations and biological changes is what drives evolution in the first place.

"Two: why would a moth turn into a bee or a bird?" - I mean to imply any more complex organism than a moth. obviously I didnt mean literally a bee or a bird, just a higher form of life.
"Three: The word 'turned' implies a short amount of time." -Again, I didnt think anyone would take hat literally. I mean to say that no envirnmental changes which has forced organisms to adapt have ever caused real evolution, evolving into a higher form of life.

"According to the evolutionary timeline it took about 800 million years from the first prokaryotic lifeforms to cyanobactiera" - This sort of proves my point that evolution HAS NOT been observed yet. But my main point is that we havnt even seen ANY changes in bacteria which would suggest that it is evolving over the last 200 years. You're saying that there are no visible signs of evolution besides envirnmental adaptation? If so, than it furthers my point what we have no observed evolution.

"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." - Yes it would be quie laughable, assuming thats what I said, which I didnt...like AT ALL. I'd enjoy it if you read my arguements and not filled in spaces with your own commentry to try and insult my points if you would. I never suggested that, and there is no way from reading what I posted would you get that assumption.

"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." - Good, than we should be seeing evolution in less time shouldnt we? Again, this kind of furthers my point.

"And you can't. It's not that I believe that these people are inferior or stupid (though it's likely)" - Thought its likely, I apperciate that. Doesnt that sort of prove that you DO believe that your intellectual opponents are inferior? Its kind of a slap-dash way of hiding your thoughts about the issue isnt it?

"And I treat them with very little respect because they try to force their ideas onto the minds of children." - I've never understood this arguement. Politics, religion, ethnic background is RARELY FORCED upon children. In fact, forcig ideas is usually a good way to make sure that a child will NOT belive those ideas. This arguement has never held much water for me and to me is a bit like the old "ITS FOR THE CHILDREN" emotional rhetoric, which is all that really is, emotional rhetoric.

"Their tactics are trying to undermine the theory of evolution using false arguments, made up facts and name-calling" -The first two I can understand, but I've seen more of the second by evolutionists...this discussion is a good example. Also, I've rarely seen the first two from ID advocates or Creationists. Also, undermining the opponents arguement is usually half the battle in a debate.

"Not much to say on this. I don't live in the USA" - I live in the USA and my family is Mexico, I've rarely seen ID or Creationism presented in positive ways, especially in schools.

".... Derp...." - Indeed. "Evolution says nothing on how life started" - Naturalistic explaination is what I was refering to. Evolution is merely the end chapter of how life begain, How life grew.

 

[Deschamps]

A bit of a tangent:

I find racism to be the silliest thing when we consider the simple reasons for the existence of different skin colours. In the northern European climates, light skin is advantageous because it helps in the production of vitamin D. Meanwhile, in Africa, where the sun is much more powerful, dark skin offers protection from harmful UV radiation. I'm sure there are other ways in which different skin tones are better suited to different environments.

With this in mind, we can't say there is a "superior race" but rather that each race successfully adapted to their own environment.

 

[GraveeKing]

NP. I've noticed there are a lot of people like you, who misunderstand evolution and thus have problems accepting it, but are not indoctrinated creationists. I try to make it a point to help there, since a lot of times it seems they get buried under the much louder arguments with creationists and forgotten.

Also, I'm not a sir.

Woops! Sorry! Didn't realize! Well then, thank you mam. I've already watched the first couple of videos of one of the mentioned chaps, I won't pretend I exactly did well at science, but it's good to finally have it explained.
I can't help but agree on -some- creationists though, a hell of a lot are just idiots who stick by their principles and refuse to learn anything and as much as I admire them on their dedication - they can't really expect people to always agree with them. Sad thing is - these seem to be the majority these days, I do although know a few Christian friends, who have always been a hell of a lot smarter than me and plenty of others and are much more accepting of new ideas - you seen now, if there were more people open to new ideas like them, there wouldn't be all these pointless arguments.
ANYWAY! I shall be off now, Thank you again for the source mam, and I'll continue on my way now, Have a nice day!

 

[evilneko]

But my main point is that we havnt even seen ANY changes in bacteria which would suggest that it is evolving

Yes we have.

it furthers my point what we have no observed evolution.

Yes we do.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Asita]

I want to apologize. I was probably a bit to harsh with you. I'll try and be more civil about this.

Dover Panda Trial: that was on a specific book and a specific school district. "Of Pandas and People" was the book in question, which was more Creationist than overall Intelligent Design. The fact is that religion used Intelligent Design to argue against evolution since the 20th century got started, thus it was dripping with religious undertones. Also, didn't the judge also say that ID claims might be true? Doesn't that indicate a hint of scientific fact in it?

I haven't seen anything obviously wrong either way on that site. Maybe I just need time for a closer look. I won't count so much on "Expelled" until I do have a clearer understanding of it.

S'alright. I didn't exactly respond in dulcet tones either.

Re Dover: Mmm...not quite. The school district was the place chosen for the objections which had a much broader application. Its distinction comes partially from it being the first challenge to ID as a violation of the Establishment Clause, partially because of the level of involvement of the people who started the ID movement, partially because of the comprehensive conclusion to the trial, and partially because of its recent nature (The trial having taken place in 2005, thus providing little time for the term to have taken on a new meaning).

Re Judge: The judge's made a point of saying that the court took no position regarding the validity or lack thereof of ID. That holds no particular subtext as it is par for the course for any court case relating to relgiion. Comments on the question of ID itself however, did include the following:

"we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child."

"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism"
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."
(Emphasis mine)
"ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."
"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause."
"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

The full text (139 pages) of the ruling can be found here: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Quite simply ID has no predictive power and is not falsifiable, these two alone make it unscientific.

Hey, that's actually the right way to respond to what I said. Have a cookie.

People and ideas pre-1859 can be discarded.

If people and ideas prior to 1859, why trust Darwin? Oh yeah, magic! I know "Origin of the Species" was published that year, but it was all compiled of notes written years before that. Thus, by your anti-logic, shouldn't count. And I suppose gravity is a load of hogwash, in your mind too.

That was an idiotic and childish thing to say. Consider yourself properly ignored from this point on.

I just realized what the real problem is. It's not the Evolutionists, it's not the education system, it's the people who did the survey. What did they do wrong? Asked "do you believe in evolution?" Doesn't sound wrong at first, but I'd say "no". The reason is that I don't believe in evolution the same way I believe in Christianity. However, I believe evolution happens. I believe it's a viable scientific theory. I believe it should be taught in schools. See, the question was phrased in such a way that the intent of the survey could be misunderstood. Therein lies the problem.

Are you trolling me? I meant concerning how species develop. Not all science. Is that all you have left? Someone in the 1300s should not be taken seriously when talking about microbiology. Specifically when what they say contradicts what we know today.

 

[oktalist]

What are the chances we, HUMANS sit here to day?

Your argument that the world as we see it is so unlikely that it can only have been created by God, can just as easily apply to God himself. What are the chances that God, an infinitely fantastical entity, sits here today? Probability doesn't work as an argument in either case.

Except i dont believe in god.... :?
And i dont believe he created it.
I believe this supernatural force/being helped shape and protect it, but not just "poof its made".

It doesn't matter what you call him/her/it. God, supernatural force or being, the point still applies. The existence of god/force/being is just as unlikely as the existence of the universe, the universe whose existence you are trying to explain by inventing the aforementioned god/force/being. If it's possible for god/force/being to exist without itself having a creator (or shaper or protector), then it must be possible for the universe to exist without a creator (or shaper or protector).

As ive said in my earlier posts. For all i know, it could be aliens. It could be "luck", tipping in our favor. It could be "fate", making sure that the the slightest changes happen the way they need to.
The odds of us existing, as we are now is so fantastical, the number cant even be recognized. I believe something beyond our comprehension helped. Not "God" or "Buddha" or whatever you want to call it. Its something beyond our comprehension that just exists. Its not omnipotent, nor does it make our decisions of us.
It isnt always right, and it can possibly be wrong. Its ability to be right and wrong is even unknown. It may not even be sentient. It might just "be there", making sure things happen the way they should.

So what is the point of guessing about something which is unknowable?

It's all just wordplay. To paraphrase the very excellent and funny book Scepticism Inc by Bo Fowler: Words are not things. They are just words. Words give us the sensation of having described something or having found something, in fact they are just arbitrary labels and nothing to do with reality. There is no good reason to think language, any language, mirrors the real world. The metaphysician cuts everything up according to his language, things become either/or. Everything is neatly divided up into word categories like the Absolute and mere perception, Heaven and Hell. The metaphysician has infected reality with the dualism found within his language. He has attempted to grammatise the world. He imposes on the world linguistic distinctions. He cuts. Snip snip snip goes the metaphysician. The metaphysician smashes words on the world. He claims the world echoes his words when all we can really hear is silence.

 

[Anodos]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. 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.

Because one is science and one is not? How is a classroom supposed to teach an INFINITE AMOUNT of "what-ifs" Ok, today in biology, where going to learn that all our organs are bananas, tomorrow, that we are filled with flies instead of organs. Because theres absolutly NO WAY to tell if one is more true then the other...

 

[kane.malakos]

Uh... yeah. It isn't unlikely. It happens. It's called an Invasive Species. The cane toads are doing it right now in Australia.
Sounds interesting, I'll look into that. But my point is - the world has been around for so long, surely species down the food chain - like certain omnivores and herbivores would out-evolve predators, henceforth creating over-population. Many of the ways I see it, is that evolution would lead to serious over-population then causing the species to starve to death - leaving a hole in the food chain.

You kind of answered your own objection in there. If a species becomes too numerous, they wipe out most of their food, whether it's plants or other animals, and a bunch of them starve. This means more of their prey survive and their population grows. You can actually model the system mathematically. It ends up self-correcting. The problem occurs when non-native species that have no natural predators are introduced.

 

[evilneko]

Because one is science and one is not? How is a classroom supposed to teach an INFINITE AMOUNT of "what-ifs" Ok, today in biology, where going to learn that all our organs are bananas, tomorrow, that we are filled with flies instead of organs. Because theres absolutly NO WAY to tell if one is more true then the other...

Why that's just plain silly! Everyone knows we are filled with RED STRAWBERRY SYRUP. That's why when your skin gets lacerated or punctured, red stuff pours out! The reason it doesn't taste like it is.. well, do you know how long it's been in there? Years! :O

[small]This post composed of 100% silliness, if you couldn't tell.[/small]

 

[oktalist]

But if you know your history of biology, Darwin's theory was indeed natural selection. But natural selection spits in the face of genetic diversity which is proven.

Explain please. In what way does genetic diversity deny natural selection?

It also doesn't even come close to explaining all the junk throw back genetic data in modern animal life.

If it was useful to an organism in the past, but then later ceased to be either useful or harmful, it would not be selected for or against. There's no selection pressure keeping it there, but nor is there any pressure for removing it, so there's no reason why it shouldn't just hang around in our genome doing nothing. There, explained. That was easy.

Actually junk DNA is an argument against intelligent design. If the designer was so intelligent, why did he put all this junk DNA in here?

For example what the hell is the human appendix for?

Same as the junk DNA, it was useful to our ancestors. It's useless now, but there's not enough reason for natural selection to get rid of it. Its presence, rather than being a stumbling block for evolution, actually supports the "trial and error" approach of evolution while discrediting intelligent design. If there was a designer, he can not have been all that intelligent.

Even more confusing how did land based reptiles evolve in to avian life?

I would say intriguing rather than confusing. There's no reason to think flight could not have evolved by a gradual process of small adaptations. See flying squirrels.

Either way it's usually said that Darwinism/Natural Selection has been surpassed by other studies in to evolution. Though it's at large rejected in the scientific community, there are many who believe it a mechanic of evolution.

WHAT? Scientific community rejected natural selection? Hardly. Of course all theories get refined as we study them, some aspects get more emphasis while others fall in importance, but the main ideas of Darwinism are still holding strong.

 

[biggskanz]

Didn't read most of this thread but wanted to say this anyway. DISCLAIMER: I do not believe in a christian god (aka big sky daddy looking over us).

Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, it explains is how life evolves. Evolution is pretty much fact, we know it happens. Humans have been using evolution to breed certain traits into animals for millennia.

That said, evolution doesn't explain everything, e.g.: humans have 250 unique genes that are not found in any lower species.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7o7ICv5JGQ&feature=related

 

[Daveman]

Well I just hate people getting evolution and abiogenesis mixed up. Also, people who claim not to believe in evolution should also be banned from using the saying "survival of the fittest".

But seriously, people who don't "believe in" evolution and believe in creationism clearly should be pushed off of high buildings because after all they might be able to fly. There's no evidence or anything, but it is strictly possible.