The misinterpretation of evolution

[Ranorak]

Hi there,
Microbiologist here.
As well as genetics and biochemistry.

We have witnessed bacterial evolution many times.
Example.

MRSA

A Staphylococcus Aureus species that became immune for one of the most common types of antibiotics.

How, by a mutation that made the antibiotic unable to set it's lethal pathways in motion.
And this is just a single, well know, example.

 

[weker]

Wow you are riding a pretty high horse... -__- I'm glad you have so much faith in evolution, but to go and say that its sad that only half the people of the US believe it is being very naive in my opinion. You do realize that Evolution is not a law right? That means it is not a 100% provable, It's only a theory so that means there is a lot of evidence for it, but still not fact. I believe in adapting to the environment to a certain point, but changing into an entirely different species is hard to believe and it is also hard to believe the evolution of sentience.

its not a normal theory its a SCIENTIFIC theory, and not beveling in it is like not beveling that humans need food to survive.

 

[Balvale]

Hold on, intelligent design does NOT conflict with evolution - it simply stats that the world is too complex without there being some hyper-intelligent beings having helped spur things along - be it aliens or God. Whether that indicates the world is a few thousand years old or a few billion is irrelevant to intelligent design as a whole.

Incorrect. Irreducible complexity, a concept of intelligent design, is in direct conflict with evolution.

The definition: A single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Evolution runs counter to this. Parts of a system can and do have functions (see bacterial flagellum) and will not necessarily lead to collapse. These parts evolve over time and end up in their present form.

Ummm... no... it kinda doesn't? But there's no sense in arguing with you. If that's what you wanna think, that's ok. It don't bother me.

Um, yes, it does. I explained it right there. I make one reply and you're acting like you've exhausted yourself arguing for hours. Explain how evolution and irreducible complexity are compatible. It's not like I've got a post history of angry close-mindedness. Go ahead and defend your view.

 

[Pyramid Head]

Most of the time the opponents of evolution i see don't realize that the only aspect of it that hasn't been observed in a controlled environment is macroevolution because that takes a very long time. True there is a bit of speculation because it has to predict for prehistoric times, but what people don't seem to get is that by and large the science of evolution is proven fact. Mind you fact doesn't tend to have a lot of grounding with creationists... faith is one thing but literal interpretation with no critical thought is stupid in any area.

 

[oktalist]

"We have witnessed evolution, in bacteria and in moths and elsewhere" -I've already explained this, slight variation IS part of evolution but it does not prove the ENTIRE theory as a whole. The only part it proves is natural selection and the resulting speciation as well as genetic mutation etc etc.

That is evolution. What more do you want?

"If you're under the impression that evolution means a creature changing from one form to another within its own lifetime" -Did I say that? NO! NO I did not say that.

Well it looked to me like you were. Sorry.

"Also "higher form of life" is another of your own inventions, having nothing to do with evolution" - A superior form of life, I'm not going to argue termiology.

I'm not arguing terminology either. Call it whatever you like, higher form, superior form, more complex form, more intelligent form, it's got no place in evolution. It's entirely possible for something to evolve to be less complex, less intelligent, or whatever, if that confers better fitness.

If you meant fitness, then say fitness, it is a specific scientific term. But in that case, you are wrong because we have observed the evolution of increasing fitness in moths and bacteria like I said.

But the odds of evolutionary means of the origin of LIFE is very slim odd-wise.

Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life, only how life has developed after its origination.

And your alternative explanation is that it was all just magically put here? If you want to talk probabilities, that's a biggie.

"If you think that extant species and the fossil record are not concrete evidence for evolution then you have a bigger problem" - yes thats what I'm suggesting, because in no case was any animal found was proven to have ANY offspring, let alone offspring that lived long enough to reproduce and NO Evidence to suggest that these fossils are related in a long span of time rather than seperate species.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

So because we can't prove with fossils (how could we?) that animals used to breed and have offspring, we should assume they didn't, even though we know that present-day animals breed and have offspring. Do you see why I think you're mad? (In the nicest possible way.)

And even though we look so much like primates, and primates look so much like each other, and mammals as a whole have so much in common with each other (4 limbs etc.), and reptiles have so much in common with each other, and birds have so much in common, and fishes have so much in common, and we can see that they all have lots of DNA in common, we should assume that none of them is at all related to any other, unless we have actual video evidence of all of the births in the whole line of progression from one to the other?

"I can only conclude that they have a form of mental illness." - THis is why I dislike most evolutionists, because they insult their intellectual opponents with the class of an ape...all things considered that shouldnt be suprising. Haha, evolutionary humor.

This was not meant as an insult. Yeah it's a bit humourous, but in a "ha ha only serious" kind of way.

If I thought one of my friends had bipolar disorder or something like that, I might tell them that I think they might have a mental illness. That would not be an insult, would it?

This is seriously how I view the belief in things which cannot be known, and the attendant disbelief of things which are known.

 

[orangeban]

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.

Wait, you aren't convinced by having many pieces of evidence leading to a big conclusion? Isn't that how you prove stuff?

 

[oktalist]

when does the species officially cease to be aquatic and become classifed as amphibian.

There is no real defintion of this that would make sense in this context. Taxonomic classification is, to evolutionary biologists, largely an illusion brought on by our desire to define things as being of this species or that species.

Uncertainty principle

Not sure what point you're addressing with this, but the uncertainty principle is only really meaningful for elementary particles in isolation.

a property of quantum physics that nothing in the universe happens until it is seen by a conscious observer

Quantum mechanics says or implies nothing about conscious observers. Unconscious observers (like a rock, or anything really) are just as capable of collapsing probability wavefunctions as conscious observers are. To observe, in this context, simply means to be in some way perturbed by the thing being observed. We are observers who just happen to also be conscious, and because it's only possible to see wavefunction collapse from ones own point of view, it's a common mistake to think that ones consciousness has something to do with it.

in your opinion "randomly selected", in my opinion chosen as the one that it needs either to further it's own race, or if god wills it, make a tasty snack for another, better organism.

And you could have made that point just as easily without mentioning quantum mechanics.

also, if you plan to complain to me "what are these invisible forces you speak of? huh? huh? can't tell me that can you?" dark energy and dark matter just to name two off the top of my head.

We're not sure what dark matter and dark energy are. Just like a hundred years ago, we couldn't explain why the double-slit experiment makes fringes. But then someone thought of an explanation, and this explanation implied further predictions about the universe which could be tested by new experiments, which turned out to support the theory, and now we have quantum mechanics. There will always be things at the cutting edge of science that are not fully understood. These things are explored, we come to some kind of understanding, and move on to the next thing we don't understand. It's called progress.

 

[brownie212]

the reason so many think the theory of evolution is wrong or less believable than "alternatives2 is the word Theory, where scientific use of the word theory is very different to the normal use of the word, in science there are very few facts, all which can be found in the field of physics, these facts are also all measurable constants, numbers that have a relevance to something and are the same every time you measure them.

anyway so where alternatives can "advertise" themselves as facts evolution is a Theory even though we understand it, its mechanism and its causes as well as or even better than we understand what causes gravity.

the problem isn't that people misunderstand evolution so much as they misunderstand the scientific method and the language it uses.

 

[oktalist]

There are tons of transitional fossils we find everywhere. Futurama showed this one the best, but I unfortunately can't find the link.

http://www.myvidster.com/video/316851

Missing link bit starts as 1:15, but the whole clip is great, especially "may I remind you that evolution is just a theory, like gravity or the shape of the Earth."

Sterling: Your points have been quite well refuted already, but you make it so easy I just couldn't resist...

May I start by saying evolution is science. Scientists tend to be rational. If there was no evidence for evolution, or if there was evidence that contradicted evolution, then scientists would reject evolution.

1) First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law)

Other theories include: the Earth orbits the Sun, living things are made of cells, earthquakes are caused by the movements of tectonic plates. A law is something that can be stated in a few short sentences, while a theory is something that has a longer explanation. It has nothing to do with how well proven they are.

In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter.

But if such a thing were found, we would simply modify the laws of thermodynamics to include this new discovery. The thing about science is that it reflects what we observe with our eyes and ears, not what we imagine with our imaginations.

big bang

Not relevant to evolution.

where did that incredibly dense ball of matter come from?

We don't know.

Is that so shocking?

The reason we don't know is that we have no evidence to tell us where it came from. The same reason we can know nothing about any god. But maybe one day we will find some evidence. Until then, it is pointless to make wild guesses.

Evolution teaches that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order.

Evolution doesn't "teach" anything, you are talking about evolution using the language of religion, as if there are Evolutionist sermons and established dogma.

Besides, evolution says nothing about increasing complexity and order. It just happens to produce complexity and order sometimes.

but the 2nd Law of thermodynamics says that the universe is headed toward increasing randomness and decay.

Yeah, entropy increases in a closed system. The Earth's not a closed system, it recieves energy from the Sun.

If you were right, then the 2nd law would also disprove the theory that oak trees grow from acorns, or that tadpoles become frogs.

I'll go with the proven law of science this time...

Again, a law is not more proven that a theory, just easier to summarise.

Darwin said there should be innumerable transitional forms, but there are none, period.

See that Futurama clip. There are loads of transitional forms. Everything can be said to be a transitional form. It's a red herring. Demanding that we find every transitional fossil is like demanding that we measure the acceleration of every falling object in the universe before you will accept the law of gravity.

Also, very few dead animals actually get fossilised, so even if we could find every human ancestor fossil going back to our common ancestor with our closest extant species the chimpanzee, 5 million years ago, we still wouldn't have anywhere near all the links in the chain. But none of the millions of fossils yet found has contradicted evolution. None has contradicted ID either, but then ID makes no testable predictions which could ever be contradicted.

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another...

Speciation is largely an illusion brought on by our urge to categorise things as being of this species or that species. There is no clear line that could mark the point at which something can be said to have become a new species. That Professor Linton either does not know this, or chooses to ignore it, tells us all we need to know.

Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e., plant and animal] cells

No, the reason why no missing link between single-celled and multicellular organisms is that it's like looking for a needle in a haystack, except the needle is smaller than you can imagine, and the haystack is the entire Earth. It's never going to happen and it's stupid to suggest that it could, if only evolution were correct.

Of course there is evidence that there was a progression, though: the similarities between single-celled organisms and the cells of our multicellular bodies.

let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
- Alan H. Linton

Of course there is evidence. Would scientists believe it if there was no evidence? No they would not. The quote is from a book review, of a book that presented the evidence, so there is really no excuse for Professor Linton to be so dishonest. He is clearly a nut.

Read some C. S. Lewis, he set out as an Atheist to disprove God through logic

A foolish thing to attempt. Religious beliefs cannot be disproven, as they make no testable predictions about the world.

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/48.html
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147511115

These articles make the same mistakes you have done, and some more to boot (unsurprising really, since they are where you got your arguments from).

From one of the articles:

evolution teaches that everything that exists is the product of the random collision of atoms, this logically includes the thoughts I am thinking about evolution.

There's that "evolution teaches" thing again. And the movement of atoms is not random. Brownian motion is probabalistic and stems from the well understood processes of the standard model of particle physics.

And it is not evolution that says everything around us is made of atoms; that is a more general scientific principle. If you want to turn this into a more general argument for or against science as a whole, then be my guest. Do you really want to argue against the existence of atoms? It's worse than I thought, then.

 

[Asita]

Wow you are riding a pretty high horse... -__- I'm glad you have so much faith in evolution, but to go and say that its sad that only half the people of the US believe it is being very naive in my opinion. You do realize that Evolution is not a law right? That means it is not a 100% provable, It's only a theory so that means there is a lot of evidence for it, but still not fact. I believe in adapting to the environment to a certain point, but changing into an entirely different species is hard to believe and it is also hard to believe the evolution of sentience.

You do realize that theories don't graduate into laws, don't you? A Law is a short statement of fact. A Theory is a comprehensive explanation regarding the mechanics of a given subject, often connecting many Laws together in the process. There is nothing above a theory in science. For reasons why the old 'only a theory' think for a moment on Atomic Theory, Germ Theory and Gravitational Theory (which mind you is distinct from and explains the Law of Gravity). In science the word 'theory' does not denote uncertainty as it does in common converstaion (where the term bears MUCH more in common with the the term 'hypothesis' than the scientific use of theory), quite the opposite really. For something to be called a theory in science it has to line up with the existing data and make accurate predictions about the phenomena it describes.

 

[Falconsgyre]

There are tons of transitional fossils we find everywhere. Futurama showed this one the best, but I unfortunately can't find the link.

http://www.myvidster.com/video/316851

Missing link bit starts as 1:15, but the whole clip is great, especially "may I remind you that evolution is just a theory, like gravity or the shape of the Earth."

Someone really needs to put those two minutes on youtube. Thanks for the link.

 

[oktalist]

There are tons of transitional fossils we find everywhere. Futurama showed this one the best, but I unfortunately can't find the link.

http://www.myvidster.com/video/316851

Missing link bit starts as 1:15, but the whole clip is great, especially "may I remind you that evolution is just a theory, like gravity or the shape of the Earth."

Someone really needs to put those two minutes on youtube. Thanks for the link.

Someone did, but it got removed.

 

[Beliyal]

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.

Okay, first of all, I know your post is two days old, but I've read most of the thread a bit late, so. I don't intend to flame or start an argument, I just found your post to be worthy of a reply (it reminded me of my way of thinking when I was younger and not a college student).

Now that's out of the way, I'd like to say that evolution does not necessarily mean transformation from one life form into another or whatever people believe evolution means these days. I know Wikipedia is not the peak of human knowledge, but check out Wiki's definition of evolution. It's only one sentence: "Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals." (with this source: ^ a b c d Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc.). Within recorded history, humans did not develop wings or morphed into astral beings (and probably never will), but we did evolve. First and foremost, our lifespan increased. Second, we grew to be taller on average. If there's this included in the definition ("Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next." - the sentence right after the first one from Wiki), do I even need to go on on how our behaviour evolved during recorded history? And there's the simple things, not exclusive solely to recorded history; humans with darker skin? It's not for aesthetics, it serves a purpose and it evolved to protect humans from the dangerous sun rays. Black people can sunbathe without sunscreen while I'll get major skin burns if I do that.

We can also completely ignore the humans. There are other life forms that we can observe and see their evolution. Ever saw more than one dog breed? Evolution (artificial, selected evolution, but evolution). We breed them as we like it. How do you think we even got dogs in the first place? By selectively breeding wolves and taming them to become obedient and less aggressive to humans. Dogs did not just magically appear because we needed them; it was a live and long-lasting process of selectively taming and then breeding favourable traits, while affecting the behaviour of the animal as well. Actually, I think that dogs are probably the best example for this. Even better examples, though, are life forms with smaller lifespans. Humans are not really suitable for observing evolution because of our long lifespan and we can't really take humans to isolate them and let them live as live experiments. But even without that, anyone can see some of our evolved traits; the afore mentioned longer lifespan, height and, something I didn't mention before, our intelligence. No matter what people say about "new generations", humans are, on average, becoming more intelligent with every new generation. And not because of magical space dust or giant omnipotent man in the sun.

Still, I'm interested in what you would consider to be an "evolution of a human being". Do we need to get extra limbs, extra brains? Special powers? Lose something we don't need? Become evidently smarter, evidently prettier, stronger, better? I'm just interested in what people would approve of as being the evolution of the human kind.

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)

Impossible miracle? Miracle, maybe, but impossible? No, obviously, because we are here with means to observe evolution. Still, neither you nor me are biologists that dedicated their lives to this subject, so neither of us can say "All those people that did dedicate their lives to this matter are WRONG and they missed something." Logics tell me that such complex matter cannot be explained in a few sentences or on an online encyclopaedia or that we actually have to witness something in person to know it happened. Can anyone really "witness" the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD and say that it really happened? No, not at all. But we have an enormous amount of evidence, such as historical records and, most importantly, cities buried in volcanic ash. We haven't seen it and we never will, but we have indisputable evidence of this event. Evolution, however, is not just ONE event; it's a process, lasting for millions of years, a process that still lasts and that will go on on working after humanity is long gone. We can't observe it as we could observe the eruption of a volcano. It's not an event set in time that you can just look at once and see "Ah yes, evolution just happened". And we most certainly don't have to go back in time to see our ancestors because we can already see them when we dig out their bones. What do you think anthropology and archaeology are for? And paleonthology, paleozoology (well, paleobiology in general) for that matter too. We don't need to see real dinosaurs walking around to know they existed, we have an indisputable amount of evidence for their existence (and their evolution), despite nobody saw them alive (or saw them evolving). I suppose there are still certain questions about evolution, but that does not mean evolution is not true; it just means that we have yet to develop a way to understand certain things about it. So far, evolution is very well documented and explained and can be taken for a fact, but still has minor thing that need to be attended. What else do people want? A video of a life form evolving? Well, that ain't happening (not any time soon, at least).

And smashing two rocks together is not how live started. There needs to be a delicate balance of various factors for life to appear, that's why there was no life when Mars was created or when Mercury was created. It appeared only on Earth. Not because of smashing rocks, rocks smashed in the entire solar system. But the origin of life is not a part of studying evolution. That's abiogenesis.

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.

Evolution does not "behave" "conveniently" for us. Evolution just is, whether we are here or not. Evolution was happening for hundreds of millions of years before humans appeared on Earth. And what do you mean by developing "from nothing more than small proteins and nutrients into a 6ft tall mass of flesh in a matter of 20 years"? As in, in 20 years, a human goes from being an egg and a single sperm to being a fully developed human being? What's that have to do with evolution? Evolution is a process that needs thousands, millions of years, depending on what's happening; to go from a simple life form to a human being, yes, it needs millions of years. To make humans taller or smarter? A few thousands.

Now, I don't know how to make this sound any prettier, but you need to get to know a thing or two about the world. Telling someone "You need education" may sound like mocking, but I find it to be a delightful truth for all humans on this planet, and something you apparently agree on; humans don't know everything and it is doubtful that we ever will. However, the more we know, the stronger we are and the better we are. Yes, some people will use it for evil deeds, just as some people use ignorance for evil deeds. Should we stop exploring the world around us because of that? No. Ignorance is not a bliss. Ignorance is the darkness where the abilities of a human being, evolved after thousands, millions of years, are left unexplored and unused. It is through knowledge that we realized that our actions are hurting Earth's ecosystem and our fellow humans and it is through ignorance that we've killed and destroyed million, possibly billions of lives. Was it science and knowledge that killed people in the Crusades, or burned "witches" or created the Holocaust? No, it was ignorance.

I agree that we don't know everything and all scientists agree too. It is a sign of a simple mind when someone believes there's nothing left to learn, and people knew that since the dawn of time. I'll give you a quote from Seneca, which was printed at the beginning of one of my Physics textbooks for high school:

"The time will come when diligent research over periods will bring to light things which now lie hidden... Many discoveries are reserved for ages still to come, when memories of us will have been effaced. Our universe is a sorry little affair unless it has something for every age to investigate. Nature does not reveal her mysteries once and for all."
- Seneca (Opera: Naturalium Quaestionum Libri)

Wise men and women have known, since recorded history (and probably before that too), that no man will ever know all that is. However, we currently live in time where we have the biggest amount of knowledge at our disposal, more than ever in history. What is even more important, never before in history have more men and women been able to freely get all that knowledge for themselves. Never before were there so many schools and so many opportunities to learn. Never before was there Internet, a place where anyone can reach any type of knowledge in a matter of seconds (it's not the best way to learn, but it's a very good start, especially if it has a lot of sources. So Wikipedia is not always something to be entirely dismissed). Yes, we don't know everything. But we have more knowledge and more possibilities for learning now than ever before in the history of mankind.

People really need to stop looking at science as if it is a horrible monster. And I tell you this because I was once in your position. Only now do I realise that I was far too young and lacking in far too much knowledge. As soon as I opened my mind and started exploring the world around me, I realised that science is not a monster to be feared; ignorance is. Indifference is. Simple-mindedness is. Refusing to broaden your horizons, refusing to stand up and just TAKE all the possibilities you have to learn is.

You can make an educated guess that all questions you currently have about evolution have already been answered by scientists, after many decades of research, observation, testing, accumulating and documenting of huge amounts of data and knowledge. If you have questions about evolution that you can't find answers for, then you might just be a revolutionary thinker who thought of something before everyone else and I'd urge you to go and study the subject, especially if you have a major interest in it. Maybe you'll stumble upon your answer along the way and maybe you end being the one who discovers it. The cure for almost any problem is education, but only if you let yourself use it.

Note: I may be wrong about some things, but hey, it's nothing that some good old education can't fix.

 

[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.

No. I dont believe its more valid.
I believe its less fantastic. xD

An answer doesnt have to be more valid for you to believe it.

"I believe George Washington enjoyed heavy metal and and dancing on a pair of sandwiches in china."

"Thats impossible! Because Napoleon ate liverwurst, which farting his way across Canada, in purple spandex."

Which is the more valid opinion?
Neither. They are both unproven, fantastical, and HIGHLY unlikely. Just because its a belief, doesn't mean i view it as the more valid one. Its just the option i personally prefer.

Maybe you think valid means something different from what I think it means. You refuse to admit that believing assertion A rather than assertion B means you think A is more valid. Instead you say that you just prefer A. I do not see a difference between valid and preferable. I think you are arguing semantics. Which of your examples about Washington and Napoleon do you prefer, then?

Your examples are about real people who existed in the real living world. We know that neither heavy metal nor sandwiches had been invented in Washington's time, and have no evidence that he ever visited China. We also know that spandex had not been invented in Napoleon's time and have no evidence that he ever visited Canada. On the other hand, it is quite likely that he did eat liverwurst at some point in his life, it being a common foodstuff in many of the areas he lived in during his life.

So you can see how assertions about real people and things who exist(ed) in the real living world can be analysed as to their validity.

Here are some other examples:

"God wants everyone to do as he commands."
"Exactly 144,000 people will go to Heaven."
"Numbers hold the key to the absolute."
"An unknowable intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe."

These assertions are metaphysical. They say nothing about the real living world that we can see and smell and feel. It's not that they are unproven, fantastical or unlikely, it's that they are unknowable, which is another word for meaningless. We have no mechanism by which we can judge their validity. Or their preferability, whatever you choose to call it.

We can say what we would like to be true, but then we are simply making a wish. That it would be desirable for something to be true is not sufficient reason to believe it is true.

"Do you know how many wild metaphysical guesses mankind has made over the centuries, in the various cultures he has created? Neither do I, but I know this, it's an utterly ridiculous number."

 

[oktalist]

I know your post is two days old, but I've read most of the thread a bit late, so. I don't intend to flame or start an argument, I just found your post to be worthy of a reply

NOOOO! Get out while you still can! Save yourself!

I've been stuck here for three days. Help me.

 

[Beliyal]

I know your post is two days old, but I've read most of the thread a bit late, so. I don't intend to flame or start an argument, I just found your post to be worthy of a reply

NOOOO! Get out while you still can! Save yourself!

I've been stuck here for three days. Help me.

It seems like I couldn't resist the ancient call of an Internet argument! Even my captcha is telling me to run. It says "ran Hontions". I don't know who or what these Hontions are, but they obviously ran. Maybe I should too

 

[ExileNZ]

I read somewhere that as much as 40% of schools in the States were teaching Creationism as fact and either 'debunking' or simply ignoring evolution. I think that's your problem, right there.

That said, I can neither remember where nor when I read this, so take it with a grain of salt until someone else remembers the same article and provides something tangible, like a link.

 

[Asita]

I read somewhere that as much as 40% of schools in the States were teaching Creationism as fact and either 'debunking' or simply ignoring evolution. I think that's your problem, right there.

That said, I can neither remember where nor when I read this, so take it with a grain of salt until someone else remembers the same article and provides something tangible, like a link.

That'd be the Gallup Polls.

Though honestly, I get the distinct impression that a lot of the misconceptions are largely attributable to the media, given the sheer number of times I hear creationists talk about 'THE Missing Link' (which is a concept almost entirely generated by the news media. Science has a concept of missing links, which is nothing more than any undiscovered fossil, but no singularly important example) and the overwhelming misunderstanding of 'mutation' to mean either something found in comic books ("Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider, granting him superpowers and turning him into the AMAZING SPIDER MAN!") or being otherwise incredibly noticeable (being born with two heads for instance, which also gained popularity through hollywood)

 

[ExileNZ]

That would be Gallup Polls, Exile

I read somewhere that as much as 40% of schools in the States were teaching Creationism as fact and either 'debunking' or simply ignoring evolution. I think that's your problem, right there.

That said, I can neither remember where nor when I read this, so take it with a grain of salt until someone else remembers the same article and provides something tangible, like a link.

That'd be the Gallup Polls.

Though honestly, I get the distinct impression that a lot of the misconceptions are largely attributable to the media, given the sheer number of times I hear creationists talk about 'THE Missing Link' (which is a concept almost entirely generated by the news media. Science has a concept of missing links, which is nothing more than any undiscovered fossil, but no singularly important example) and the overwhelming misunderstanding of 'mutation' to mean either something found in comic books ("Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider, granting him superpowers and turning him into the AMAZING SPIDER MAN!") or being otherwise incredibly noticeable (being born with two heads for instance, which also gained popularity through hollywood)

A guy I used to work with asked me if evolution was real then how come we didn't have 3 arms.
I think he missed the plot somewhere.

 

[Vindictus]

"IF EVOLUTION IS REAL, THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS?

CHECKMATE, DARWIN"