The misinterpretation of evolution

[Olrod]

Okay, looks like we have to yet again point out how The Real World works.

EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

The "theory" part of evolution is an explanation as to HOW evolution happens.

The reality of evolution itself is not in question. It. Is. A. Fact.

Theory = HOW it happens, not DOES it happen. Because it does.

 

[JFrog84]

Belief has no place in matters of science. If something can be demonstrated to be true, then you either accept it as truth, or you are a fool.

Are you saying that Isaac Newton was a fool and that his ideas had no place in science? As he strongly belived in creationism and fought against alternative theories.

And here we go again: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114.html

It's also worth noting that your statement there does not address the gist of the statement you were responding to, and I'd be very surprised indeed if you didn't already know that. If you want a better rundown on it though: Personal belief does not determine scientific validity or the curriculum studied in science class. Chemistry classes will not teach alchemy because some people might believe in it, Medical courses won't teach homeopathy for the sake of its defenders. The only thing that matters in a science class is where the evidence points. And Newton's works do not even relate to the belief you attributed to him, making your appeal to authority fallacy a non-sequitor at best.

I make no appeal of authority I merley asked a question of a particular post. Also the statment I quoted is the part of the post that I take issue with, at no point did i ever say that personal belief determines scientific validity, the reason I take issue with the post is that it states if you let your spiritual belief influence your belief in science then your a fool. Me then asking if the poster belives a particular scientist is a fool for doing just that is not a non-sequitor, but a valid question.

I think you might find that most who belive in a spirtual being God or not also belive that it created the heavenly bodies aswell, Newton in particular despite what the current science was saying belived that God created all, which leads me to belive that his work and his belief did come into conflict, yet, his belief won. The post I quote makes a very broad statement I want it clarified as to weather or not it should be taken as an atempt at a serious argument or just someone having a rant. Belief holds a bigger place in scientific theory than what most give it credit for, whether pro or anti religion, a lot of theories are made on the individuals belief about God (wether he exists or not).

You may also notice that in both of my posts I still have niether made an argument for or against eveolution, I wonder why this could be?

 

[Asita]

the reason I take issue with the post is that it states if you let your spiritual belief influence your belief in science then your a fool. Me then asking if the poster belives a particular scientist is a fool for doing just that is not a non-sequitor, but a valid question.

But that wasn't what the post said. In the proper context the post was responding to the notion that it was ok to pander to belief in science (with the quote they were responding to . That it was ok to change the curriculum because of people's personal beliefs and prejudices, saying - to paraphrase - 'why make them learn a theory they don't believe in?'. The gist of the post was that personal belief means diddly squat in science, a given person's belief in geocentrism doesn't mean that a course on astrophysics would teach a geocentric model. A belief in healing through prayer doesn't mean that a medicinal course should teach faith healing as a viable alternative to antibiotics. And so on.

 

[JFrog84]

the reason I take issue with the post is that it states if you let your spiritual belief influence your belief in science then your a fool. Me then asking if the poster belives a particular scientist is a fool for doing just that is not a non-sequitor, but a valid question.

But that wasn't what the post said. In the proper context the post was responding to the notion that it was ok to pander to belief in science (with the quote they were responding to . That it was ok to change the curriculum because of people's personal beliefs and prejudices, saying - to paraphrase - 'why make them learn a theory they don't believe in?'. The gist of the post was that personal belief means diddly squat in science, a given person's belief in geocentrism doesn't mean that a course on astrophysics would teach a geocentric model. A belief in healing through prayer doesn't mean that a medicinal course should teach faith healing as a viable alternative to antibiotics. And so on.

Actually your wrong, the first post specifically says that they wouldn't go around and try make people teach it. Here is the proper context with both posts in full.

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.

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

Belief has no place in matters of science. If something can be demonstrated to be true, then you either accept it as truth, or you are a fool.

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.

As you can see the first post actually says he belives in evolution but feels it's up to the individual what they belive, whereas, the quoter replies to this that belief has no place in the matters of science. Which, as I said is the line that I took issue with, not the post as a hole.

 

[Asita]

Actually your wrong, the first post specifically says that they wouldn't go around and try make people teach it.

...Are you seriously going for a semantic argument here? If you want to play that game, tell me, where did I say anything about making people teach anyting? Where did the original poster? You might want to look at my paraphrasing of the poster again. Your claim that I'm wrong does not address anything I actually said, which focused entirely on the idea that science was subjective to personal belief - which is an absurd concept to start with.

As you can see the first post actually says he belives in evolution but feels it's up to the individual what they belive, whereas, the quoter replies to this that belief has no place in the matters of science. Which, as I said is the line that I took issue with, not the post as a hole.

So basically your complaint was that Deschamps took issue with a line in Dann661's post, regardless of his opinon of the post as a whole?

 

[Immsys]

I feel sad that this sort of behaviour is tolerated, while a religious man would be laughed from the stage. I think we need to get some things straight.

"That's right, around 50% of the population of the United States does not believe in evolution, and that is sad. Especially since the scientific theory has undergone so much criticism and a constant wave of evidence, that it has become almost completely infallible."

So, first something cannot, nor will not, ever be "almost completely infallible". That is rubbish of the first degree, either something is infallible or it isn't, there really isn't a middle ground here. Second, to assert that something is "almost completely infallible" is to assume yourself infallibility over the issue, this is something very prevalent in your post.

"And yet people still live ignorant of it as they have been misinformed about evolution."

your claim that everyone who does not agree with evolution is incorrect is unfortunate, you speak with a breed certainty that is reserved for religious men (God is the only example of certainty I can think of, not to say that God in any way exists). You do not know that evolution is how the world came about. It may be likely, but you do not know. This means that any statement such as calling people who disagree with you "misinformed" utterly void. This is a tactic that is employed by religions the world over, if you disagree with them, they will claim that you simply "do not understand God". Sound familiar? Do not use this type of arguing. You are well within your rights to claim that someone is incorrect, that is acceptable, but never, ever, claim that someone who does not agree with you is simply "misinformed about evolution". Please, this is an intellectual website, scientists get enough bad press with people like Richard Dawkins leading the Athiest League and all the arrogant atheists all to the promised secular land, don't tarnish the reputation further.

 

[Asita]

Do not use this type of arguing. You are well within your rights to claim that someone is incorrect, that is acceptable, but never, ever, claim that someone who does not agree with you is simply "misinformed about evolution". Please, this is an intellectual website, scientists get enough bad press with people like Richard Dawkins leading the Athiest League and all the arrogant atheists all to the promised secular land, don't tarnish the reputation further.

Er, it's actually demonstrably true that much of the objections to evolution stem from misinformation. Common examples of misinformation include "evolution can't explain how the first cell came about" (Evolution doesn't deal with this topic at all, focusing entirely on the diversification of life rather than its orign, which is Abiogenesis), "Evolution is only a theory" (confuses the colloquial use of theory with the scientific use, the latter of which implies a comprehensive model explaining a given phenomena and producing accurate predictions from it), "no transitional fossils have been found" (Relies largely on the idea that basically three forms exist - original, halfway and new -, which is about as true as saying that the only color between Red and Yellow is Tangerine, for exactly the same reason). The list goes on for some time.

 

[BrassButtons]

your claim that everyone who does not agree with evolution is incorrect is unfortunate

No, it's accurate. Evolution has been proven correct, and people who don't agree with it are incorrect.

Is it unfortunate to tell a geocentrist that their model of the universe is incorrect?

You do not know that evolution is how the world came about.

Well of course it isn't. Evolutionary Theory has nothing to do with how the world came about. So would it be okay for me to call YOU misinformed, since you just made an incorrect claim about evolution? Or should I just let that slide since calling someone 'misinformed' is something the religious do, and thus can never ever be a rational argument for some reason?

You are well within your rights to claim that someone is incorrect, that is acceptable, but never, ever, claim that someone who does not agree with you is simply "misinformed about evolution".

So you don't mind saying someone is incorrect, but saying that their INFORMATION is incorrect crosses a line? Bwuh?

 

[magnuslion]

However, I that it has become almost completely infallible. And yet people still live ignorant of it as they have been misinformed about evolution.

Logical Fallacies are fun. Evolution has no been proven infallible, especially Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's theory was predicated on an idea, limited as he was in cellular knowledge, that cells where very simple, when in fact they are enormously complex. furthermore, we have not found any trans-evolutionary fossils in the fossil record, not even one. there is still no explanation for irreducible complexity.

Darwin was limited by his time. I am certain having read a great deal about Darwin, both his literature and his personal life, that he would be slapping modern scientists upside the head and asking them why they were not searching for answers.

The answer is simple. most people who swallow evolution without question are using it as an excuse for not having religion or as a replacement for it.

Regardless of your alignment towards religion, any person that simply takes beliefs held by others without examining the evidence of a theory is an imbecile.

and that is not what Darwin would do.

 

[Immsys]

your claim that everyone who does not agree with evolution is incorrect is unfortunate

No, it's accurate. Evolution has been proven correct, and people who don't agree with it are incorrect.

Is it unfortunate to tell a geocentrist that their model of the universe is incorrect?

You do not know that evolution is how the world came about.

Well of course it isn't. Evolutionary Theory has nothing to do with how the world came about. So would it be okay for me to call YOU misinformed, since you just made an incorrect claim about evolution? Or should I just let that slide since calling someone 'misinformed' is something the religious do, and thus can never ever be a rational argument for some reason?

You are well within your rights to claim that someone is incorrect, that is acceptable, but never, ever, claim that someone who does not agree with you is simply "misinformed about evolution".

So you don't mind saying someone is incorrect, but saying that their INFORMATION is incorrect crosses a line? Bwuh?

No, it is not proven. You can only make it appear more likely. It is perfectly possible that the data being collected was altered by an event on the earth, by a fault in the collection equipment we have today or any number of numerous possibilities. it is not foreseeable that anyone will ever be able to prove it %100 percent, since we are not infallible. We cannot account for errors in data gathering, interference from unknown origins, etc etc. Of course it can seem likely, and it is likely, but it cannot be proven in the near future since we will never be certain of our methods of gathering data.

 

[Immsys]

Do not use this type of arguing. You are well within your rights to claim that someone is incorrect, that is acceptable, but never, ever, claim that someone who does not agree with you is simply "misinformed about evolution". Please, this is an intellectual website, scientists get enough bad press with people like Richard Dawkins leading the Athiest League and all the arrogant atheists all to the promised secular land, don't tarnish the reputation further.

Er, it's actually demonstrably true that much of the objections to evolution stem from misinformation. Common examples of misinformation include "evolution can't explain how the first cell came about" (Evolution doesn't deal with this topic at all, focusing entirely on the diversification of life rather than its orign, which is Abiogenesis), "Evolution is only a theory" (confuses the colloquial use of theory with the scientific use, the latter of which implies a comprehensive model explaining a given phenomena and producing accurate predictions from it), "no transitional fossils have been found" (Relies largely on the idea that basically three forms exist - original, halfway and new -, which is about as true as saying that the only color between Red and Yellow is Tangerine, for exactly the same reason). The list goes on for some time.

I apologise for i have clearly given the wrong impression. It is perfectly possible for people to be misinformed, especially when talking about evolution, but my issue is with positions that often lead to people claiming that everyone who disagrees with them is simply misinformed. Hopefully that clears it up a bit, I am not as literate as I like to believe.

 

[Something Amyss]

You do not know that evolution is how the world came about. It may be likely, but you do not know. This means that any statement such as calling people who disagree with you "misinformed" utterly void.

Actually, anybody claiming that evolution is supposed to explain how the world came about is indeed highly misinformed. Evolution does not address the origins of the universe, the planet, or life on Earth. If you disagree with this notion, you are misinformed. And, I might add, this is one of the common tenets upon which people choose to disagree with evolution. In short, they are arguing with a lie, whether they know it to be a lie or not.

In short, your own statement stands as a pretty solid example of why statements like "ignorant" and "Misinformed" stand in the general sense.

 

[BrassButtons]

No, it is not proven. You can only make it appear more likely. It is perfectly possible that the data being collected was altered by an event on the earth, by a fault in the collection equipment we have today or any number of numerous possibilities. it is not foreseeable that anyone will ever be able to prove it %100 percent, since we are not infallible. We cannot account for errors in data gathering, interference from unknown origins, etc etc. Of course it can seem likely, and it is likely, but it cannot be proven in the near future since we will never be certain of our methods of gathering data.

By this logic NOTHING is proven. Sure, it may SEEM like your computer works, but you can't be 100% sure that your brain isn't playing tricks on you. It might be LIKELY that the earth revolves around the sun, but we're fallible so our data could be wrong. Germ theory might APPEAR to be correct, but maybe we're wrong and illnesses are actually caused by demons.

If we're going to use this line of reasoning then there's no point in discussion--I mean, logic might SEEM to be valid, but we can't know for sure right?

 

[Immsys]

You do not know that evolution is how the world came about. It may be likely, but you do not know. This means that any statement such as calling people who disagree with you "misinformed" utterly void.

Actually, anybody claiming that evolution is supposed to explain how the world came about is indeed highly misinformed. Evolution does not address the origins of the universe, the planet, or life on Earth. If you disagree with this notion, you are misinformed. And, I might add, this is one of the common tenets upon which people choose to disagree with evolution. In short, they are arguing with a lie, whether they know it to be a lie or not.

In short, your own statement stands as a pretty solid example of why statements like "ignorant" and "Misinformed" stand in the general sense.

By "came about" i refer to the world coming to the place in time it is today. In other words, how the world CHANGED or EVOLVED into the state it currently embodies. Yes, something that "came about" can mean how it was created, but it also refers to how something came to resemble what we know it as.

 

[Immsys]

No, it is not proven. You can only make it appear more likely. It is perfectly possible that the data being collected was altered by an event on the earth, by a fault in the collection equipment we have today or any number of numerous possibilities. it is not foreseeable that anyone will ever be able to prove it %100 percent, since we are not infallible. We cannot account for errors in data gathering, interference from unknown origins, etc etc. Of course it can seem likely, and it is likely, but it cannot be proven in the near future since we will never be certain of our methods of gathering data.

By this logic NOTHING is proven. Sure, it may SEEM like your computer works, but you can't be 100% sure that your brain isn't playing tricks on you. It might be LIKELY that the earth revolves around the sun, but we're fallible so our data could be wrong. Germ theory might APPEAR to be correct, but maybe we're wrong and illnesses are actually caused by demons.

If we're going to use this line of reasoning then there's no point in discussion--I mean, logic might SEEM to be valid, but we can't know for sure right?

Well then, if by that logic nothing can be proven, then nothing can be proven. Only tautologies such as "a stallion is a male horse" or "a triangle has three sides" can be proven, because it is true regardless of perspective. You assume however, that only things that are proven are valuable. Not correct, the majority of experimental science is about testing working hypothesis and seeing if they continue to work. this does not, however, mean that it is proven.

Oh and Logic is different, since it does not rely on sensory perception. I cannot know that my logic is correct, but i can work on the hypothesis that if no one else can disprove my logic then it is workable for the moment.

 

[Asita]

furthermore, we have not found any trans-evolutionary fossils in the fossil record, not even one. there is still no explanation for irreducible complexity.

Trans-evolutionary? What? Do you mean transitional fossils? Because that's another one of those misconceptions I was talking about.

And irreducible complexity...well starting things off it's an argument from incredulity, a well-known logical fallacy which boils down to 'I can't think of an explanation, therefore no explanation exists'. More amusing still, we have explanations for the proposed 'irreducibly complex' systems. Bacterial Flagellum? Here. The eye? Tada. Claim in general? Thoroughly debunked. I think this video gives the explanation particularly well:

Darwin was limited by his time. I am certain having read a great deal about Darwin, both his literature and his personal life, that he would be slapping modern scientists upside the head and asking them why they were not searching for answers.

You think they aren't looking for answers? What do you think Gregor Mendel was doing? Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (the current model for Evolution) while based in part on Darwin's work encompasses a lot more than Darwin ever wrote about.

The answer is simple. most people who swallow evolution without question are using it as an excuse for not having religion or as a replacement for it.

Considering that most christians actually have no more issue with evolution than they do heliocentrism, that's not an accurate claim. Population demographics alone state that most people who accept evolutionary theory are theists and are predominantly christian.

 

[magnuslion]

furthermore, we have not found any trans-evolutionary fossils in the fossil record, not even one. there is still no explanation for irreducible complexity.

Trans-evolutionary? What? Do you mean transitional fossils? Because that's another one of those misconceptions I was talking about.

And irreducible complexity...well starting things off it's an argument from incredulity, a well-known logical fallacy which boils down to 'I can't think of an explanation, therefore no explanation exists'. More amusing still, we have explanations for the proposed 'irreducibly complex' systems. Bacterial Flagellum? Here. The eye? Tada. Claim in general? Thoroughly debunked. I think this video gives the explanation particularly well:

Darwin was limited by his time. I am certain having read a great deal about Darwin, both his literature and his personal life, that he would be slapping modern scientists upside the head and asking them why they were not searching for answers.

You think they aren't looking for answers? What do you think Gregor Mendel was doing? Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (the current model for Evolution) while based in part on Darwin's work encompasses a lot more than Darwin ever wrote about.

The answer is simple. most people who swallow evolution without question are using it as an excuse for not having religion or as a replacement for it.

Considering that most christians actually have no more issue with evolution than they do heliocentrism, that's not an accurate claim. Population demographics alone state that most people who accept evolutionary theory are theists and are predominantly christian.

You are implying that Christians accept Darwin's theory of evolution, which excludes the possibility of God. That is retarded. the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is phenomenal. also, nothing you cited had any facts and you "thoroughly debunked" nothing.

 

[Asita]

You are implying that Christians accept Darwin's theory of evolution, which excludes the possibility of God. That is retarded. the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is phenomenal. also, nothing you cited had any facts and you "thoroughly debunked" nothing.

A) Evolution, like every other scientific theory says nothing about the existence or non-existence of deities. Its focus is entirely on the diversity seen in life.
B) Your personal incredulity does not change the fact that most Christians do in fact reconcile their faith with scientific discovery. In fact, many clergy from a variety of denominations have gone on the record saying as much.
C) Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are the exact same process. Quite literally, the latter is defined as the accumulation of the former over a longer period of time. To dismiss one but not the other is essentially equivalent to saying centimeters exist but meters don't, despite the fact that a meter is literally just a hundred centimeters.
D) I'm going to have to ask you to put your money where your mouth is here. You say that my citations lacked any form of facts. Now given the way you brushed that off - leaving the claim unsupported - I'm inclined to guess that you didn't look at what I cited at all. But since you're so certain I'll go ahead and ask what's wrong with what I cited? Be specific. How are the arguments false?

 

[BrassButtons]

You are implying that Christians accept Darwin's theory of evolution, which excludes the possibility of God.

He didn't imply anything--he stated it outright. Many Christians do not take issue with the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution does not 'exclude the possibility of god', it merely says god is not necessary to explain how species change over time. Kind of like how knowing the earth revolves around the sun means god is not necessary to explain how the sun moves across the sky.

That is retarded. the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is phenomenal.

No, it's just a matter of scale. Small (micro) changes stack up over time, resulting in big (macro) changes between the beginning and the end. Consider typing: all you do is add one letter (or symbol, or space) at a time. If you pause after ever time you press a key, it won't look like much has changed. You've just added one thing, right? But take a look when you're finished, and suddenly you've gone from a blank space to several sentences or even paragraphs. At what point did you go from micro changes (adding individual letters or spaces) to macro changes (adding complete sentences and paragraphs)?

also, nothing you cited had any facts

They sure looked like facts to me.

 

[Bradeck]

I have been reading this thread since it's creation, and I have to say. Asita, I sure have learned alot from reading your posts. Thank you for all the information and thought you have put into this.

Also, your passive and logical method of debate is certainly refreshing to a seasoned forum viewer/reader.

I wanted this to be my first post, because I happen to feel strongly about this. I wanted to find out from you Asita, if Behavioral Evolution is a viable form of what Darwin was attempting to prove.

Take for instance Monkey's grown in labs still know and understand the value of grooming. Or domestic cats still have instinctual traits not taught to them. Isn't this evolution, or am I stupid? It seems instead of physical traits, we should be looking at mental or non-physical traits for proof of evolution.