The misinterpretation of evolution

[floppylobster]

Honestly, don't worry that people don't understand evolution. It's working whether they comprehend it or not.

 

[Falconsgyre]

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.

Boy, it sure would be a terrible world if we had to force schools to teach facts. Just awful. Why, we might end up with a better educated populace who could be happier and more productive. What a horrible place that would be to live in.

 

[bootz]

My 2 cents on why ID is being pushed.
The church is a business its #1 purpose is to make money.
That why they push very conservitive ideals so they can always be tax free.
Hence the whole Glodal warming is fake and Evolution is fake, gays are bad, thinking.
Thats why liberals are bad(in the churches and their followers eyes) because they might take the churches money away.
So what do they need new members to give them cash so they are trying to recruit them in schools by teaching ID and saying science is wrong. They say only they and God are the only things that are right and please give them money. God doesn't get that money

Spread the word of God so more people give us money.

 

[BrassButtons]

My 2 cents on why ID is being pushed.

We already know why. The Discovery Institute wishes to "defeat scientific materialism" and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." It's called the Wedge Strategy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy] and getting Creationism (repackaged as 'Intelligent Design') taught in schools is one of the early goals.

 

[Jon Quixote]

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.

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.

Boy, you really don't understand evolution, do you? Seriously.

If there was a #2 misconception regarding evolution, it might be the notion that it can somehow be "guided." But it can't. That's the whole point: evolution by natural selection *means* that it just happens naturally, no intervention (divine or otherwise) required, as a necessary and logical consequence of the way the world is. Darwin's theory can best be expressed by a kind of syllogism:

(A) Within the same species, there is (genetic) variation. (By the way, it's not really important to understanding natural selection, but the amount of variation isn't fixed. New variation comes from new, random mutations arising in the DNA, most of which have no effect, and some of which can be either good or bad for the organism, depending on its environment.)

(B) In nature, there is competition for limited resources: space, food, mates, whatever. There are always more organisms born than could ever survive and reproduce.

(C) Given enough time, ANY edge, however slight, is meaningful. If that edge is hereditary -- that is, it comes from the organism's genes and gets passed onto its offspring -- that particular trait will spread through a population down through the successive generations.

(D) This "genetic change over time", with beneficial traits naturally selected for by differential survival and reproduction (which is a blind, mindless, directionless sorting algorithm -- not "random chance" by any means, but neither is it a guiding, intelligent force of any kind), is evolution.

(E) The cumulative result of lots of evolution over a long time is speciation. When a population of organisms is divided into more than one population for whatever reason (such as, for example, an isolating geographic barrier), gene flow between the two groups ceases, leaving them free to evolve in different directions, via (random) genetic drift and (non-random) natural selection.

In other words, *if* there is competition in nature, *if* there is variation within species, and *if* those variations are hereditary (spoiler alert: all three are true), then evolution *must* occur, given sufficient time. The logic is so airtight that empirical evidence is almost unnecessary. (But, of course, said empirical evidence does exist, in spades. Molecular biology and modern genetics being merely the best examples we have to date, which is not to discount the fossil record, comparative anatomy, bio-geography, etc.)

So... where does that leave the idea of "guided" (or theistic) evolution? Well, evolution just happens on its own. The only time that random chance ever inserts itself into the process is when mutations actually arise in the DNA. As I mentioned before, most mutations don't do anything. They might occur in the junk DNA, or they might change a codon to another codon that actually calls for the same amino acid (meaning, no effect on the phenotype). But if you get a point mutation that actually does code for a different amino acid, and therefore builds a different protein (or, say, a chromosome-level mutation where whole stretches of DNA get duplicated or rearranged), well, then something interesting has happened. The mutation will have an effect on the organism then, and whether it's good (and gets passed on) or bad (and doesn't last a generation) just depends. Mutations themselves are the one facet of evolution that really are random... so if you think that God is actually pulling the strings from behind the scenes, this is where He's working His Divine Mojo.

In other words, to believe in guided evolution, you have to believe that every time DNA gets copied wrong (whether it will result in a good mutation or a bad one, or have no effect at all), it's not just a natural occurrence and a chemical fluke of the way DNA replicates; it's a miracle caused by some supernatural force extrinsic to the universe, or the dictum of providential Fate. At which point, of course, you might as well also posit that nothing in nature is really random, and every time you roll a die or pick a card, invisible angels and demons are the ones controlling the outcome. Which is patently absurd.

Simply put, there's no gap for God in evolution... *unless* you believe that God has foreordained the motion of every particle and the outcome of every event in the history of the universe. (Which would also mean that free will can't exist, so good luck convincing even a theist that this is, in fact, really true.)

==========

And that's #2. If evolution has a #1 misconception, it's the positively asinine idea expressed by the quoted poster above that a fish could suddenly grow nubs and lungs. There's nothing "sudden" about evolution! Evolution doesn't happen in jumps! This can't be repeated enough:

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN, IN THE HISTORY OF LIFE, AN ORGANISM THAT DID NOT BELONG TO THE SAME SPECIES AS ITS IMMEDIATE PARENT(S) AND OFFSPRING. An unbroken chain of parent-and-child relationships connects EVERY life-form currently alive on Earth (us included) to the first prokaryote.

More importantly, evolution does not happen to individual organisms. MUTATIONS happen to individual organisms. If those mutations produce beneficial traits, the traits spread through the population. That's evolution. Evolution, therefore, happens to POPULATIONS OF ORGANISMS -- and it doesn't really make sense to think of evolution happening on a smaller scale than that of the population.

This, of course, is precisely what makes evolution so controversial in the ultra-religious USA. Liberal, mainstream Christian denominations and the Roman Catholic Church like to paper over the rather obvious fact: geneticists know that the hominid population that gave rise to modern Homo sapiens can never have been smaller than, say, ten thousand individuals. We never had a pair of "original parents": it's outright impossible for that to ever have been the case. Adam and Eve are mythical characters who cannot possibly have ever existed. That being the case... Original Sin can't be taken literally. There were never a "first man" and "first woman" to sin for the whole human race. This, of course, makes the doctrine of salvation equally nonsensical. (This is, of course, setting aside the whole morally repugnant notion that mankind could be held accountable for one man's sin and then subsequently redeemed via another's sacrifice. Here I'm just talking about whether it really happened.)

Since there can't have been an Adam and Eve to have sinned, there is no literal need whatsoever for a Christ to do any redeeming. "Original sin" is, at best, a metaphor for humanity's general tendency towards douchebaggery. This makes "salvation" (again, at best), metaphorical as well. If you need your metaphors to cope with the world and be a good person... that's fine, I'm certainly in no position to judge. But for me, given the fact that these things can't possibly be literally true (which we know for a fact, thanks to our understanding of evolution), I'd rather just dispense with the religious gobbledygook and be done with it.

 

[RedDeadFred]

MITOCHONDRIAL LINK TO EVE

You need that or you can't prove evolution and EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST will admit they don't know what that link is...

Ok, what is this Eve thing? I'm serious I don't know. I don't really feel like trying to find this on google but I have a feeling you are referring to the lady from the bible. If that's the case, nothing any evolutionist ever says to you will change your opinion. If it's something else please enlighten me because this sounds like it's a major hole the way you are making it out to be.
If it's Eve from the bible, a response really isn't necessary because I stopped believing in that book the same day I stopped believing in Santa Claus.

 

[RedDeadFred]

MITOCHONDRIAL LINK TO EVE

You need that or you can't prove evolution and EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST will admit they don't know what that link is...

Ok, what is this Eve thing? I'm serious I don't know. I don't really feel like trying to find this on google but I have a feeling you are referring to the lady from the bible. If that's the case, nothing any evolutionist ever says to you will change your opinion. If it's something else please enlighten me because this sounds like it's a major hole the way you are making it out to be.
If it's Eve from the bible, a response really isn't necessary because I stopped believing in that book the same day I stopped believing in Santa Claus.

Hey so I did further reading into the thread and now know what you're talking about.

 

[AmosMoses]

Creationism has absolutely no basis in fact, and should not be taught as such. It is the view of a religion, and thus should not be taught to kids as a scientific theory, but as a part of a religious history class, should they choose to take one.

This! There are no facts supporting creationism other than "wow, look how a bannana fits in your hand". It's not science.

I'm a Crevolutionist. I believe that God likes dominoes and set up the entire universe to play through this. 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.

This is deism. God set off the whole affair and then left it to go on it's own. This is the only form of belief I can get on with. The problem is that many creationists believe in the entire garden of eden story, Adam and Eve... that is very much at odds with Evolution.

 

[cdstephens]

Creationism has absolutely no basis in fact, and should not be taught as such. It is the view of a religion, and thus should not be taught to kids as a scientific theory, but as a part of a religious history class, should they choose to take one.

This! There are no facts supporting creationism other than "wow, look how a bannana fits in your hand". It's not science.

I'm a Crevolutionist. I believe that God likes dominoes and set up the entire universe to play through this. 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.

This is deism. God set off the whole affair and then left it to go on it's own. This is the only form of belief I can get on with. The problem is that many creationists believe in the entire garden of eden story, Adam and Eve... that is very much at odds with Evolution.

It's theistic evolution I believe.

Egh, a lot of people, including me, take a bunch of the stories by face value. The important part of the Adam and Eve story isn't that God created such and such in such and such days. The important parts are that a) God is all powerful, and b) it's humanity's fault that we're evil.

The Bible becomes a lot more reconcilable with science once you focus on the lessons it's teachings, not on the super specific details, and when you analyze the context these stories were first told.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

Evolution will probably always be a theory, as it can not be 100% proven through hard evidence. It is hard to doubt the evidence that exists but the problems lie with the fact that although slow evolution is constant, which mean there are only a few living species today that can be actively used to study it. 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.

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

I'm not going on at you in any way, but I do wish that people would understand that theory in the scientific/empirical sense, is not used in the same way as you and I use it. EVERYTHING in science is a theory. At present, our understanding of primary forces are shaped by Newtons theory of Gravity.

This is because the empirical method demands flexibility, and in order to be accepted must open itself to possible scrutiny from opposing evidence. In a nutshell, if you can present even a single example where Gravity doesn't behave EXACTLY as Newtons theorem says it will, then the entire book on it will need rewriting, to explain your example. Of course this hasn't happened once in hundreds of years, so it's pretty much accepted as fact, but there is still the possibility for disproof.

Likewise, the theory of Evolution is called that because it must be open to disproof. But, like Gravity, there hasn't been a single case where evolution hasn't played out exactly as Darwins theory predicted.

No I agree with you outside the realm of mathematics there are very few theories that are 100% empirically verifiable, and thus in the grand scheme of things there are very few theorums. Which is why I suppose we have Occam's Razor (when two or more opposing hypotheses are in contradiction pick the one that requires the least assumptions).

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

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.

Technically creationism is a theory, but it is not a very good one (sorry hard to write that with a straight face)

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

Which version of Evolution is the right one?

Which version of Creationism is the right one?

Think about those two questions, and consider them both equally. Eventually you may come to a realisation.

There are multiple "versions" of evolution?

Yes the theory of evolution has for lack of a better word evolved over time as we learn more about it.

 

[cdstephens]

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.

Technically creationism is a theory, but it is not a very good one (sorry hard to write that with a straight face)

In a scientific sense, that's not true. A scientific theory is one that can make predictions that can be proved true or false.

For example, evolution predicts that introducing an antibiotic to a microbe population will eventually cause the bacteria to evolve and be more resistant to the antibiotic.

Creationism as far as I know it does nothing to predict anything.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

They should really change that name from evolution "theory" to something more obvious like the "laws" of nature.

 

[k-ossuburb]

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.

I completely agree, everyone must know that the universe was created by the Great Fluffy One Himself; the Giant Space Hamster Boo. I'm glad that you want Him to return to us so that we can ride on his back for his next journey to the dimension of ice cream, rainbows, tits and beer. Boo invented Boobs and Booze, y'know, that's just how awesome he is.

OT: One misinterpretation I see a lot is that evolution has some kind of goal in mind and wants to make us all "better". It doesn't, it's just a natural process that has no real direction, it's just a reaction to various factors where one species has a genetic trait which helps it to not die as much as others who don't have it (as well as other more complicated things, but I'll be here for hours typing those out so Google that shit if you want to learn more) it's pretty much summed up in "survival of the fittest" although the theory has been significantly refined since its initial inception.

 

[evilneko]

I'll have you know, Boo is a MINIATURE Giant Space Hamster, thank you very much. NOW STAND AND DELIVER!

 

[AWAR]

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.

Through personal experience, I've found out the main "suspect" behind many misconceptions is linguistic in nature. Most people do not know that theory can be used either as theory: the opposite of practice, the explanation behind something and theory meaning a hypothesis or belief.
Also let's not forget that the reason many Christians don't accept scientific explanations is because they adopt a literal interpretation of the bible.

 

[AMMO Kid]

The misinterpretation of evolution is that it is completely flawless. When you get down to the details there really is no solid piece of evidence for evolution, just many pieces of "evidence" that lead people to one conclusion. It's okay to believe in evolution if you want, but please don't go around thinking that it is a flawless gem and other belief systems are full of holes and unprovable.

 

[oktalist]

Never said my answer was more valid.

Simply by believing your answer you are implying that you think it is more valid than competing answers.

 

[Olrod]

Name one belief system that ISN'T "unprovable".