The misinterpretation of evolution
- Thread starter Flac00
- Start date
I don't understand why people are talking about believing in evolution. the fact is that there is over 500 million years worth of fossil evidence, so unless you have some serious proveable evidence then you simply cannot argue against it. however you could argue the causes ie evolution was set in motion by an all powerful being vs it just happened vs alien interference etc
I'm a biological scientist-in-training, and yes it is very sad indeed. . . I really don't want to read through 13+ pages of Atheists vs. Theists so lets just leave it at that.Flac00 said:
Well you do have punctuated equilibrium as opposed to phyletic gradualism. Perhaps that's what he was referring to. Or just talking out his ass.zakkro said:
There are also things much smaller in scope, such as the aquatic ape hypothesis which is an attempt to explain our nakedness relative to our ape brethren. It sounds cool, but I don't think aquatic ape has much actual support.
What? You mean other than the massive similarities in gene code all living things share? You mean other than the massive amount of fossils we have showing proof that populations changed over time? You mean the other mountains of evidence for it?NickKuroshi0 said:
Genetic mutation doesn't change population growth, what it does is make changes and see's if those changes can survive. These changes are anything from a different coat color to being slightly faster. This occurs due to sexual reproduction being a unpredictable and complex process when it comes to gene replication and the amount of errors that can occur (although this usually ends up in something that's tragic, like say retardation). What you get is say there's a population of deer, some deer are faster than others and so those who can't outrun the wolves die and are removed from the gene pool. So if the slow deer are gone what remains? The fast deer who are able to evade predators more. Each one of these population changes constantly occurs and over long periods of time a new specie arises. The Galapagos islands were a good place to study for Darwin due to the everchanging terrain and climate and how species over time would develop big beaks then develop small beaks then develop big beaks again.
Being completely on topic, it's probably because our school system sucks. Sadly I know many people in their high school years who cant spell photosynthesis or precipitation. I learned to spell both of those words second grade. It's pathetic. They don't even seem to have a grasp on the concept of "sounding it out". Many people think that if you have medication, taking twice the recommended dosage medication should have twice the benefits. Seeing as how many of these people are loose on the streets and many actually have high school diplomas at home, it's no surprise to me that they don't know about evolution. On a side note, although I am a Christian I do believe that evolution exists. "The gradual change of an organism over time to adapt to it's surroundings." Let's use giraffes as an example. If most giraffes were short necked with few long-necked giraffes and suddenly in their habitat all of the trees suddenly became too tall for the average giraffe to reach and they were unable to migrate to anywhere with shorter trees, the giraffes with the longer necks would be the only ones to eat and would pass on their genes to their children making more and more long-necked giraffes over time while there became less and less short-necked giraffes due to starvation until eventually, the long-necked giraffes are the only ones still able to eat and thus the only ones to reproduce making all giraffes long-necked through natural selection. That makes perfect sense. There's no debating that that couldn't exist or happen if those were the circumstances. But despite believing in evolution, I don't think that humans evolved from apes. But I won't really get into that. Back on topic, since evolution is still a theory, (it's called the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution)people are entitled to believe what they will.
Excuse me?evilneko said:
I did think that current evolutionary theory had some fine details that were still to be discovered, such as punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism, etc. However they're both considered to be part of "Darwin" style evolution.
I was also making a reference to Lamarckian evolution, which is a completely different (and more importantly, disproven) theory.
Then when you compare it to the Creation stories of pretty much every different religion ever since the dawn of Humanity. It's not just "Darwin vs Genesis" if you're going to suggest that "Creationism" is a viable alternative to Evolution, as all "theories" of creation would be just as valid as each other. Personally I'm hedging my bets on the Rainbow Serpent.
Right... Yeah, that's not what I meant. But I guess that's what happens when you gloss over certain details.AngloDoom said:
'Change' in this sense isn't that the animal will change. Animals don't adapt to their environment except insofar as they are inherently adaptable for some other reason.
The change is random, but the result is not. Because the adaptations that are better suited to the environment are more likely to survive.
So, over time, the end result still tends to be that the changes will reflect the environment. They're technically random, but the result only tends to remain random when a mutation has little effect on the survival of a species.
Moving an individual animal won't have any effect on anything at all. Because evolution has nothing to do with individuals. It's only relation to individuals within a species is that reproduction and death of individuals is more or less the mechanism through which evolution works.
But, I guess confusion like that happens pretty easily when you don't specify every single detail of what you're referring to.
If people have a hard time understanding the "RANDOM CHANCE" thing...
Imagine each species is playing Dungeons & Dragons. Each dice roll is random, but is it coincidence that the end result is defeating their enemies, putting on the armor they randomly find, and trying to reach the end? Is it completely by accident? No, you just take what rolls ont he dice...
Imagine each species is playing Dungeons & Dragons. Each dice roll is random, but is it coincidence that the end result is defeating their enemies, putting on the armor they randomly find, and trying to reach the end? Is it completely by accident? No, you just take what rolls ont he dice...
That's Directed Panspermia.Forlong said:
Guided by what, and for what reason?
Not even close, and they aren't hypotheses. Evolution is a scientific theory, and ID or creationism is an idea, not even a hypothesis. A hypothesis is made with the intention of testing it, while ID and creationism (need I even say "and" as if they're any different?) are tailored to be untestable, to allow no room for scrutiny.
First: Evolution is not an atheistic thing. It's scientific.
Second: No it's not. An idea has to be proven before it's to be accepted. You could say the same about theists, too; what with germ theory and heliocentric universe theory.
Third: The evolutionary model that Darwin proposed is not the same model we use today. The only thing he's praised for is sparking the chain of peer-reviewed study that lead to the far more accurate model we use today.
The reason why people get angry when asked to explain evolution is because we know that when somebody has the gall to say things like "I don't believe in evolution" (which is erroneous in itself, considering it's a scientific fact and people choose to ignore it because they're stubborn) they often let you explain the entirety of evolution, and not listen to a word you said the whole time. You can understand why that would be aggravating.
Evolution in a nutshell:
-During cell reproduction, DNA is copied
-Sometimes the DNA is copied incorrectly, and the sequence is out of order. This is called a mutation
-DNA, being the code that tells a cell how to grow and what to do, will create a different cell if even one acid is changed
-When an organism changes, it is now a new subdivision
-If this organism survives, its genes will carry on and possibly create a new species
-If the organism does NOT survive, the genes are not replicated.
Genetic Mutation + Survival of the Fittest = Evolution
That's all you really need to know.
Side Note: Evolution begins after the genesis of life, and doesn't concern it whatsoever. It is supposed to explain the diversity of life, not the origin of it. Origin of Species, not Origin of Life.
I know, it makes me cringe every time.evilneko said:
From Wikipedia:
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Pedagogical_definition
It's likely that someone has posted this before, but I'm still putting it here so it has more exposure.
There are two heavily debated versions. Those are Gradualism and Punctuated equilibrium.zakkro said:
I would like to blame the school system for not teaching properly because they typically don't. However this is a problem spread by deliberate misinformation and lies to encourage belief in a higher power. Feel free to bring to my attention any of the information that discredits evolution or provides credibility to ID, creationism, or alternative explanation to the origin of new species and I'd be happy to address them. I have yet to find any, but who knows maybe I'll learn something new.
For the record I do have a bachelors in biology so expect heavy resistance. Not to say I don't have an open mind, but it better be as convincing or more so than what evolution has to offer.
yes, this exactly. The reason I believe in this is because I find it to be a ridiculous theory that a fish was randomly born with nubs and the ability to breath air, and it was somehow able to use that to survive better.Dann661 said: