The misinterpretation of evolution

[Bobbity]

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record (Read: If we found that most fossils appeared in most if not all of the strata in no particular order). Finding true chimeras such as found in mythology (mermaids, griffons, hyppocampus, chimera (mythological creature rather than vague synonym for amalgamation)) would do much the same. And if a mechanism was found in organisms that outright stopped mutations from accumulating (read: Literally acting as a wall saying 'here you shall go and no further') that would similarly cast doubt on evolutionary theory. There are plenty of scenarios that could potentially falsify evolution.

That said, at this point we can say with a great deal of certainty that the fossil record is not static, we have no evidence for any true chimeras, and all indications point to there not being any magical genetic barrier preventing a population from changing past a certain point. These remain falsifiable points though we can say with ever greater certainty such things will not be found in much the same way that we can say with ever greater confidence that one day gravity won't turn off and we'll all fall into the sky.

I'm pretty sure that I can shoot my mouth off about any subject I like researched or not so your first sentiment is null and void. Now if you actually knew anything about science you would see how funny your first statement I commented on was because you would know that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

oh by the way gravity doesn't exist.

And the entire solar system orbits a small mouldy grape, don't forget that.

"With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple": "gravity doesn?t exist."

I daresay that if you read the paper, you would find the explaination to be a good deal more complex than that. Gravity does exist, and that's a quantifiable fact. Whether or not it exists as we presently perceive it is what's up for debate.

 

[Iron Lightning]

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record (Read: If we found that most fossils appeared in most if not all of the strata in no particular order). Finding true chimeras such as found in mythology (mermaids, griffons, hyppocampus, chimera (mythological creature rather than vague synonym for amalgamation)) would do much the same. And if a mechanism was found in organisms that outright stopped mutations from accumulating (read: Literally acting as a wall saying 'here you shall go and no further') that would similarly cast doubt on evolutionary theory. There are plenty of scenarios that could potentially falsify evolution.

That said, at this point we can say with a great deal of certainty that the fossil record is not static, we have no evidence for any true chimeras, and all indications point to there not being any magical genetic barrier preventing a population from changing past a certain point. These remain falsifiable points though we can say with ever greater certainty such things will not be found in much the same way that we can say with ever greater confidence that one day gravity won't turn off and we'll all fall into the sky.

I'm pretty sure that I can shoot my mouth off about any subject I like researched or not so your first sentiment is null and void. Now if you actually knew anything about science you would see how funny your first statement I commented on was because you would know that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

oh by the way gravity doesn't exist.

And the entire solar system orbits a small mouldy grape, don't forget that.

"With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple": "gravity doesn?t exist."

Really, an actual theoretical physicist doesn't believe in gravity? So what does he think causes what we perceive as gravity? Please give me a link to this Erik Verlinde's theory of "no gravity." I would be very interested to read about it.

 

[floppylobster]

I will start off by saying I am no scientist. However, I have noticed that almost everywhere (including here on the Escapist) many people do not understand evolution. This not just simple missteps like accidentally involving use and disuse into your arguments, but major misinterpretations. But this is not the problem, simple misunderstanding and misinterpretations are not somehow horrible offenses. However this has lead to a problem.
These misinterpretations have now lead to a whole culture of people who not only refuse to believe in evolution, but also use their misinterpretations to fuel their arguments. An example of this run amok by ignorants is "Social Darwinism" (which is an extremely annoying name as Darwin had nothing to do with "social darwinism"), which was really just and excuse to "prove" racism. A modern example is half the population of the United States (or less since I have not checked recent polls). 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. And yet people still live ignorant of it as they have been misinformed about evolution.
This all comes down to a single point. Why and how is this happening? Is it because our media seems to commonly ignore facts? Is it because people jump onto bandwagons just to get away from the "norm" of evolution? Is it because our public schools have failed to teach adequate science in the classroom? Is it because of the rise of Creationism and Intelligent design (which are the same exact thing) has been corrupting our science classes and media? I would just like to hear other people's opinions on this.

Edit: Someone has kindly pointed out to me that it is instead "social darwinism" instead of just "darwinism". Also, to add a tad more context. Darwin specifically stated that evolution should not be applied to humans in that sense.

I would say -
(1) Darwin happened up upon an idea of how the basic mechanism of evolution worked. He didn't discover it as such, he recognized it. Whether humans recognize how evolution is working or not does not change the truth that it is constantly happening all around us every day. So I wouldn't worry too much that people "Don't get it". It's still working.

(2) Why should evolution not apply to humans? This is the most common misconception I come across. I have read Origin of the Species cover to cover (and it took some time). Darwin does hint that humans are part of it, but it was too difficult for him at the time to out-rightly say what he really thought so he could only imply it. Why wouldn't we be part of it?

Social Darwinism is a perversion of his theory, but only in that people think we can choose what is right. The environment is the only thing that will choose what is right, but other than that, humans are involved in an extremely complex evolutionary process. (Bobbity is right in that mutations are a driving force of evolution but environmental selection is such a huge part of it so it's contribution to the shape of life should not be discounted. Also, consider that to an individual, every other individual on the planet constitutes part of their environment).

Which brings me to answer your question - Where has these misinterpretations come from? From it being a very complex concept, that has incredible ramifications for our existence, and one that is very hard to conceptualize because of our short life spans and the fact when are inside the process itself.

I am very understanding of people who believe in god and religion when faced with the theory of evolution. It can be extremely overwhelming to face, understand and comprehend it. Also, it's not necessary for everyone to understand how it works. I don't understand fully how the human brain works but I live happily with one. And so it will be with evolution. Some will study it and learn more about it, others will go through their whole lives ignorant of it. Which brings me back to point (1); it doesn't matter that some people ?don't get it?. Those who need and want to, do. And it's working fine whether we know it or not. Any complete theory of evolution should be able to explain religion anyway right? And it does.

 

[Kolby Jack]

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record (Read: If we found that most fossils appeared in most if not all of the strata in no particular order). Finding true chimeras such as found in mythology (mermaids, griffons, hyppocampus, chimera (mythological creature rather than vague synonym for amalgamation)) would do much the same. And if a mechanism was found in organisms that outright stopped mutations from accumulating (read: Literally acting as a wall saying 'here you shall go and no further') that would similarly cast doubt on evolutionary theory. There are plenty of scenarios that could potentially falsify evolution.

That said, at this point we can say with a great deal of certainty that the fossil record is not static, we have no evidence for any true chimeras, and all indications point to there not being any magical genetic barrier preventing a population from changing past a certain point. These remain falsifiable points though we can say with ever greater certainty such things will not be found in much the same way that we can say with ever greater confidence that one day gravity won't turn off and we'll all fall into the sky.

I'm pretty sure that I can shoot my mouth off about any subject I like researched or not so your first sentiment is null and void. Now if you actually knew anything about science you would see how funny your first statement I commented on was because you would know that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

oh by the way gravity doesn't exist.

And the entire solar system orbits a small mouldy grape, don't forget that.

"With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple": "gravity doesn?t exist."

I thought only Electro-magnetism and weak interaction were kinda the same thing. When did strong interaction make this little romp into a three-some?

 

[KoalaKid]

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record (Read: If we found that most fossils appeared in most if not all of the strata in no particular order). Finding true chimeras such as found in mythology (mermaids, griffons, hyppocampus, chimera (mythological creature rather than vague synonym for amalgamation)) would do much the same. And if a mechanism was found in organisms that outright stopped mutations from accumulating (read: Literally acting as a wall saying 'here you shall go and no further') that would similarly cast doubt on evolutionary theory. There are plenty of scenarios that could potentially falsify evolution.

That said, at this point we can say with a great deal of certainty that the fossil record is not static, we have no evidence for any true chimeras, and all indications point to there not being any magical genetic barrier preventing a population from changing past a certain point. These remain falsifiable points though we can say with ever greater certainty such things will not be found in much the same way that we can say with ever greater confidence that one day gravity won't turn off and we'll all fall into the sky.

I'm pretty sure that I can shoot my mouth off about any subject I like researched or not so your first sentiment is null and void. Now if you actually knew anything about science you would see how funny your first statement I commented on was because you would know that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

oh by the way gravity doesn't exist.

And the entire solar system orbits a small mouldy grape, don't forget that.

"With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple": "gravity doesn?t exist."

Really, an actual theoretical physicist doesn't believe in gravity? So what does he think causes what we perceive as gravity? Please give me a link to this Erik Verlinde's theory of "no gravity." I would be very interested to read about it.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b7D1IaRcyRgJ:www.theblaze.com/stories/brilliant-physicist-guess-what-gravity-doesnt-exist/+gravity+doesn%27t+exist&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

 

[KoalaKid]

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record (Read: If we found that most fossils appeared in most if not all of the strata in no particular order). Finding true chimeras such as found in mythology (mermaids, griffons, hyppocampus, chimera (mythological creature rather than vague synonym for amalgamation)) would do much the same. And if a mechanism was found in organisms that outright stopped mutations from accumulating (read: Literally acting as a wall saying 'here you shall go and no further') that would similarly cast doubt on evolutionary theory. There are plenty of scenarios that could potentially falsify evolution.

That said, at this point we can say with a great deal of certainty that the fossil record is not static, we have no evidence for any true chimeras, and all indications point to there not being any magical genetic barrier preventing a population from changing past a certain point. These remain falsifiable points though we can say with ever greater certainty such things will not be found in much the same way that we can say with ever greater confidence that one day gravity won't turn off and we'll all fall into the sky.

I'm pretty sure that I can shoot my mouth off about any subject I like researched or not so your first sentiment is null and void. Now if you actually knew anything about science you would see how funny your first statement I commented on was because you would know that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

oh by the way gravity doesn't exist.

And the entire solar system orbits a small mouldy grape, don't forget that.

"With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple": "gravity doesn?t exist."

I daresay that if you read the paper, you would find the explaination to be a good deal more complex than that. Gravity does exist, and that's a quantifiable fact. Whether or not it exists as we presently perceive it is what's up for debate.

Well bobby old boy, I did read the paper; why else would I be the one to bring it up? "Gravity doesn't exist" is meant to be overly dramatic as my intention is to show that everything is up for debate as science cannot prove or disprove anything.

 

[KoalaKid]

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

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

No, they should not be taught simultaneously. Evolution is a scientific theory with evidence to back it up, whereas Intelligent Design is just a theory based upon faith. ID does NOT belong in Science lessons. (Or even in schools at all)

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record (Read: If we found that most fossils appeared in most if not all of the strata in no particular order). Finding true chimeras such as found in mythology (mermaids, griffons, hyppocampus, chimera (mythological creature rather than vague synonym for amalgamation)) would do much the same. And if a mechanism was found in organisms that outright stopped mutations from accumulating (read: Literally acting as a wall saying 'here you shall go and no further') that would similarly cast doubt on evolutionary theory. There are plenty of scenarios that could potentially falsify evolution.

That said, at this point we can say with a great deal of certainty that the fossil record is not static, we have no evidence for any true chimeras, and all indications point to there not being any magical genetic barrier preventing a population from changing past a certain point. These remain falsifiable points though we can say with ever greater certainty such things will not be found in much the same way that we can say with ever greater confidence that one day gravity won't turn off and we'll all fall into the sky.

I'm pretty sure that I can shoot my mouth off about any subject I like researched or not so your first sentiment is null and void. Now if you actually knew anything about science you would see how funny your first statement I commented on was because you would know that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

oh by the way gravity doesn't exist.

And the entire solar system orbits a small mouldy grape, don't forget that.

"With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple": "gravity doesn?t exist."

Really, an actual theoretical physicist doesn't believe in gravity? So what does he think causes what we perceive as gravity? Please give me a link to this Erik Verlinde's theory of "no gravity." I would be very interested to read about it.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b7D1IaRcyRgJ:www.theblaze.com/stories/brilliant-physicist-guess-what-gravity-doesnt-exist/+gravity+doesn%27t+exist&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

You know, stupid physicists do exist.

You obviously know more about physics than he does right?

 

[Kolby Jack]

The thing people don't seem to factor into this is how stubborn people can be. Yelling quotes and evidence into their faces just makes them dig further into their own beliefs until the whole thing becomes a shouting match of petty insults. I'm sure everyone has some belief that most other people find quite stupid, and being told their beliefs are stupid more often than not just forces them into a state of denial which doesn't help anyone. What everyone needs is understanding and patience; it's not the end of the world just because some people prefer to think different than you. It doesn't make them stupid, or childish, or whatever.

Life is not about "I'm right, you're wrong" but rather about compromise.

And yes, I did specifically avoid mentioning which belief I'm for, because this statement applies to everyone.

This is the crux of the entire debate on evolution vs ID. The believers in ID are just not willing to listen and consider the arguments of the scientists.

/facepalm

Did you even read all of my post? IT APPLIES TO EVERYONE. Yes, the creationists and whatnot refuse to listen to the evolutionists, but that's because the evolutions treat them like they're idiots and don't try to respect or understand their point of view. BOTH SIDES ARE AT FAULT HERE.

 

[Sunrider]

I never forced anyone to believe in Evolution, regardless of how heated my discussions have become and how stupid I thought the other person was, but I see no reason NOT to "believe" in it.
You can choose not to "believe" in gravity too. The apple still falls to the ground if you drop it.

Believe what you will, the facts are still evident.

 

[Monsterfurby]

The point of evolution is that its terminology is misleading. In fact, just everyday observations can pretty much illustrate how adapting to new environments and situations works - and evolution is nothing else.

Take for example physical training. If you train regularly, your body will adapt to that challenge. Your lung capacity will increase, you will become stronger. The second piece in the puzzle is genetics AND custom. If part of your physical advancement is passed on, it will not immediately be apparent in you descendants, but a species adapting to a new environment over centuries WILL experience sustainable and permanent change.

That's actually all there is to it. Animals like ourselves adapt to their environment. And eventually, this carries over into their species.

Also, concerning the debate: Just like I think it's perfectly decent to believe in Jesus of Nazareth as a great person without all the fantasy stuff attached to him (which devalues his achievements a lot), I also think that, yeah, something might have created us - probably by establishing the basic natural laws and letting them run their course until stuff like homo sapiens came along and even way past our lifespan. Isn't that by itself remarkable enough?

I am not going to comment on American Society in general, but from my experience living in the US for 10 months, I was amazed how medieval certain pockets of society in such a modern country could be.

 

[KoalaKid]

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

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

No, they should not be taught simultaneously. Evolution is a scientific theory with evidence to back it up, whereas Intelligent Design is just a theory based upon faith. ID does NOT belong in Science lessons. (Or even in schools at all)

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record (Read: If we found that most fossils appeared in most if not all of the strata in no particular order). Finding true chimeras such as found in mythology (mermaids, griffons, hyppocampus, chimera (mythological creature rather than vague synonym for amalgamation)) would do much the same. And if a mechanism was found in organisms that outright stopped mutations from accumulating (read: Literally acting as a wall saying 'here you shall go and no further') that would similarly cast doubt on evolutionary theory. There are plenty of scenarios that could potentially falsify evolution.

That said, at this point we can say with a great deal of certainty that the fossil record is not static, we have no evidence for any true chimeras, and all indications point to there not being any magical genetic barrier preventing a population from changing past a certain point. These remain falsifiable points though we can say with ever greater certainty such things will not be found in much the same way that we can say with ever greater confidence that one day gravity won't turn off and we'll all fall into the sky.

I'm pretty sure that I can shoot my mouth off about any subject I like researched or not so your first sentiment is null and void. Now if you actually knew anything about science you would see how funny your first statement I commented on was because you would know that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

oh by the way gravity doesn't exist.

And the entire solar system orbits a small mouldy grape, don't forget that.

"With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple": "gravity doesn?t exist."

Really, an actual theoretical physicist doesn't believe in gravity? So what does he think causes what we perceive as gravity? Please give me a link to this Erik Verlinde's theory of "no gravity." I would be very interested to read about it.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b7D1IaRcyRgJ:www.theblaze.com/stories/brilliant-physicist-guess-what-gravity-doesnt-exist/+gravity+doesn%27t+exist&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

You know, stupid physicists do exist.

You obviously know more about physics than he does right?

I didn't say that. I'm just saying that when someone earns the title 'physicist', it does not mean that their ideas suddenly become 100% true and accurate, and must be accepted as fact by everyone.

I mean, probability-wise a physicist should be near this mark, but what I'm saying is there's always an exception.

Anyway, as others have said, the argument isn't really about whether gravity exists or not, and it's not really relevant to this argument.

I think it's absolutely relevant to this argument, and if you were to read my post before throwing in your two cents you would see how.

 

[Spaloooooka]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why?

Ok. So:
Your physical being is not an exact representation of your genetic make-up. It is an expression of the Alleles which are made up by your genetic strucuture - ergo the combination of Adenine [A], Thymine [T], Guanine [G] & Cytomine [C] linking by a glucose molecule and a phosphate molecule! A& T are always opposite and C&G are always opposed. and set of these 3 are refered to as a Gene so:
a gene
A=T
T=A
C-G
=double bond
-single bond

These curl via hydrogen ion bonds and cause the curly effect of the double helix!!! These physical traits are the ones that are passed on. Not the anatomical traits individual possess!!!!!!!!! !!!

...
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RRRRRRRaAAAAAARARaRARRR

This process is hit or miss because the organelles which actually copy and divide the DNA chains during the cytokynesis phase. BUT certain traits occur within the DNA in close proximity to each other so they stand a much higher chance of being passed on, so hair colour and eye color are linked. This is not taking into account recessive and dominant genes.

!---1-11!!!!!

now, evolution is the idea that the traits of individiuals are passed down via particular repetition, or exaggeration, of those traits in all the following generations.

--Darwin did NOT actually have anything to do with evolution and a lot of the terms we use because he only laid down the building blocks. IT WAS HIS FOLLOWERS WHO ACTUALLY COINED MOST OF THE TERMS WE USE TODAY!!! --

Take the beloved peppered white moth of the English Midlands
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution )
This is an example of natural evolution within our existence and a direct result of human evolution without intention and example of speciation.

Another example is the common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo. While both are very alike, the creation of the Congo river some 1.5^6 to 2^6 years ago caused the bonobo to become isolated and inbred - enhancing particular features, in the case of the bonobo, anthropomorphic features.

an example of human controlled evolution is the breeding of dogs. While the all definitely share a common ancestor they are now separate species, due to the impossibility of some species breeding with each other.

The reason evolution is stated as a theory is that science is a lot less ridged than religion. While religion instructs purely to believe and that is that "do not question something a human will never understand." Science allows for adaptation of ideas in order to be the most accurate and statistically correct. While this, at first, appears to be a weakness it is a strength. Religious philosophy has taken thousands of years to remain fairly intact. Where as science has taken roughly 300 hundred years to harness the power of the atom.

Not to mention other implications, such as gender equality and the justification of the slaughter of millions of other people just for thinking differently - ergo religious zealots unhappy with science being states as fact in the 12th and 13th centuries.

 

[Titan Buttons]

I'm not entirely sure about America but it may be the way in which children are taught, or possible not taught, about what the theory of evolution is because it confilcts with the religious beliefs of the parents. Also, what exactly is Intelligent design?

 

[similar.squirrel]

Intelligent design isn't necessa

..Creationism and Intelligent design (which are the same exact thing)..

Not necessarily. Panspermia, in the event that it took place, could be considered Intelligent Design. Depending on who or what did the seeding.

I think it boils down to the fact that these people are ignorant and scared, and having a homophobic skyperson in charge is better than a theory that they don't like the implications of.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

The thing people don't seem to factor into this is how stubborn people can be. Yelling quotes and evidence into their faces just makes them dig further into their own beliefs until the whole thing becomes a shouting match of petty insults. I'm sure everyone has some belief that most other people find quite stupid, and being told their beliefs are stupid more often than not just forces them into a state of denial which doesn't help anyone. What everyone needs is understanding and patience; it's not the end of the world just because some people prefer to think different than you. It doesn't make them stupid, or childish, or whatever.

Life is not about "I'm right, you're wrong" but rather about compromise.

And yes, I did specifically avoid mentioning which belief I'm for, because this statement applies to everyone.

This is the crux of the entire debate on evolution vs ID. The believers in ID are just not willing to listen and consider the arguments of the scientists.

/facepalm

Did you even read all of my post? IT APPLIES TO EVERYONE. Yes, the creationists and whatnot refuse to listen to the evolutionists, but that's because the evolutions treat them like they're idiots and don't try to respect or understand their point of view. BOTH SIDES ARE AT FAULT HERE.

What is this term "evolutionists" you like to throw around here? Evolutionary theory is not it's own category of scientists in a lab, it is the broader term for an entire facet of biological and biochemical divisions of scientific research and discovery. The term "Evolutionists" (opposite of "Creationists") was first coined by a Creationist in order make Evolution vs. Creationism seem as though both were on equal grounds of a debate, no less.

Also, I cannot exactly respect a proponent of ID or Creationism when their entire "theory" relies on the premises that either "It's too complex for me to understand, so henceforth God/Design!" (Argument from Personal Incredulity, Argument from Ignorance) or "I believe God exists, henceforth Intelligent Design/Creationism is the only viable answer." (Arguably Argument from Authority). So, yes. I completely understand were ID/Creationism proponents are coming from in their arguments. However, understanding their arguments does not mean that their arguments are actually worth any legitimate intellect in an actual scientific debate, no less. If you claim your idea's and belief's can withstand scientific rigor and inquiry, and they prove to be nothing less than a purely religious driven ideology, then scientists completely reserve the right to call them "idiots" for attempting to pass that ideology off as science.

 

[Magnethead]

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

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

Teaching creationism as an alternate theory to evolution is like teaching the idea that a sprinkling of pixie dust and a happy thought are a valid alternative to a plane.

 

[KoalaKid]

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

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

No, they should not be taught simultaneously. Evolution is a scientific theory with evidence to back it up, whereas Intelligent Design is just a theory based upon faith. ID does NOT belong in Science lessons. (Or even in schools at all)

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record (Read: If we found that most fossils appeared in most if not all of the strata in no particular order). Finding true chimeras such as found in mythology (mermaids, griffons, hyppocampus, chimera (mythological creature rather than vague synonym for amalgamation)) would do much the same. And if a mechanism was found in organisms that outright stopped mutations from accumulating (read: Literally acting as a wall saying 'here you shall go and no further') that would similarly cast doubt on evolutionary theory. There are plenty of scenarios that could potentially falsify evolution.

That said, at this point we can say with a great deal of certainty that the fossil record is not static, we have no evidence for any true chimeras, and all indications point to there not being any magical genetic barrier preventing a population from changing past a certain point. These remain falsifiable points though we can say with ever greater certainty such things will not be found in much the same way that we can say with ever greater confidence that one day gravity won't turn off and we'll all fall into the sky.

I'm pretty sure that I can shoot my mouth off about any subject I like researched or not so your first sentiment is null and void. Now if you actually knew anything about science you would see how funny your first statement I commented on was because you would know that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

oh by the way gravity doesn't exist.

And the entire solar system orbits a small mouldy grape, don't forget that.

"With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple": "gravity doesn?t exist."

Really, an actual theoretical physicist doesn't believe in gravity? So what does he think causes what we perceive as gravity? Please give me a link to this Erik Verlinde's theory of "no gravity." I would be very interested to read about it.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b7D1IaRcyRgJ:www.theblaze.com/stories/brilliant-physicist-guess-what-gravity-doesnt-exist/+gravity+doesn%27t+exist&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

You know, stupid physicists do exist.

You obviously know more about physics than he does right?

I didn't say that. I'm just saying that when someone earns the title 'physicist', it does not mean that their ideas suddenly become 100% true and accurate, and must be accepted as fact by everyone.

I mean, probability-wise a physicist should be near this mark, but what I'm saying is there's always an exception.

Anyway, as others have said, the argument isn't really about whether gravity exists or not, and it's not really relevant to this argument.

I think it's absolutely relevant to this argument, and if you were to read my post before throwing in your two cents you would see how.

Your argument is 'you can't prove anything!', right? It's a stupid argument. You can't prove anything to 100% infallibility, but that's not what science is trying to do. You look at a theory, weigh up the evidence, and if all goes well you say 'I think that this theory is almost certainly true'. When a new theory comes along with better evidence, you act accordingly.

To say 'you can't prove anything' is a black and white view of a gloriously colourful world and it doesn't belong in this thread.

I hope you realize that in your statement you first said my argument was stupid, and then went on to say that it's also true.

your stupid statement:
"Your argument is 'you can't prove anything!', right? It's a stupid argument. You can't prove anything to 100% infallibility"

 

[Iron Mal]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument.

Go easy on others if what they say seems to get incoherant sometimes, the discussion between Evolution and Creationism is a somewhat difficult subject and as such can be draining (especially for those who try to be understanding and diplomatic towards the wants and needs of both sides).

Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading.

So are you saying that if Athiesm and Agnosticism were now required to be taught in Religious Studies classes alongside more traditional theologies that you'd have no issue with this? After all, they are equally valid approaches to viewing religion and morality.

It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

Other ideas that we've had for thousands of years:

-The idea that the Earth was flat.
-The idea that various illnesses and disorders are caused by demonic possession rather than harmful microbes and neurological disorders.
-The idea that in order for our crops and harvests to be successful we must give offerings and sacrifices to our chosen deity.
-Children who were born weak or deformed are not worthy of life and should be disposed of.
-Leeches are the cure for a wide variety of diseases and conditions (also Bloodletting for those problems caused by having 'too much blood').
-Killing a man and eating his heart will give you his courage.
-The way boys grow into men is by performing oral sex on and swallowing the semen of the village elders (yes, this is a real thing).
-If you masturbate then you'll go blind.

Okay, that last one I think is actually more recent (I forget when it was established) but it holds just about as much factual validity as all of these other 'ancient claims'. Just because a claim has been held onto for a long time doesn't automatically make it true.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well.

That would be fair if both were issues of religious belief, however, they aren't. Intelligent Design is grounded in faith and religious doctrine where the Theory of Evolution is grounded in observation, evidence and the scientific method.

This isn't up for debate because, quite simply, Science isn't a democratic subject. What we find to be the correct answer is determined by the evidence and how it holds up to scientific analysis. There are still a significant portion of people in the Western world who believe in medical and psychological conditions being caused by the presence of malicious spirits and demonic entities but we don't teach exorcisms in Biology classes or Medical School because it quite simply isn't science, the same applies to your rewording of Creationist Theory, calling it 'Intelligent Design' and changing a few of the details around doesn't spontaniously make it a science and we are not obliged to be fair if the evidence and research doesn't support you.

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.

If this was a Religious Studies class then that would be a perfectly fair statement to make and I would agree with you one hundred percent, in matters of faith and belief (or lack theoreof in some people's cases) everyone should be able to see all of the options avaliable and decide for themselves what they believe in terms of spirituality (for the reccord I am an Athiest but I do have a respect and understanding of various Religions that has come from also being given free choice in choosing for myself what to believe).

However, as I stated above, this doesn't work in science. We didn't come across many of the breakthroughs and advancements we have today by people choosing what they want to believe is true, many of the benefits of science you're enjoying as we speak (like the computer you're reading this on for example) were the work of people who understood the outlines and limitations of what was 'cutting edge' science at their time and tried to expand upon it and widen our knowledge to things we never would have thought of before.

It should also be noted that science isn't a subject grounded in what you believe. I could believe all I want that it would be possible to enhance my intelligence by exposing myself to radiation, I could try to create a very rational and advanced theory on how this works and even possibly get some people to agree with me if I put it across well enough but this wouldn't change the fact that what I'd be saying would be provably wrong.

How much you believe in something doesn't make the world change to make it true.

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

The main bad here is that people think it's the other side of the religion coin.It's not.It's science whether you want to accept it or not it's there.

 

[Kolby Jack]

The thing people don't seem to factor into this is how stubborn people can be. Yelling quotes and evidence into their faces just makes them dig further into their own beliefs until the whole thing becomes a shouting match of petty insults. I'm sure everyone has some belief that most other people find quite stupid, and being told their beliefs are stupid more often than not just forces them into a state of denial which doesn't help anyone. What everyone needs is understanding and patience; it's not the end of the world just because some people prefer to think different than you. It doesn't make them stupid, or childish, or whatever.

Life is not about "I'm right, you're wrong" but rather about compromise.

And yes, I did specifically avoid mentioning which belief I'm for, because this statement applies to everyone.

This is the crux of the entire debate on evolution vs ID. The believers in ID are just not willing to listen and consider the arguments of the scientists.

/facepalm

Did you even read all of my post? IT APPLIES TO EVERYONE. Yes, the creationists and whatnot refuse to listen to the evolutionists, but that's because the evolutions treat them like they're idiots and don't try to respect or understand their point of view. BOTH SIDES ARE AT FAULT HERE.

What is this term "evolutionists" you like to throw around here? Evolutionary theory is not it's own category of scientists in a lab, it is the broader term for an entire facet of biological and biochemical divisions of scientific research and discovery. The term "Evolutionists" (opposite of "Creationists") was first coined by a Creationist in order make Evolution vs. Creationism seem as though both were on equal grounds of a debate, no less.

Also, I cannot exactly respect a proponent of ID or Creationism when their entire "theory" relies on the premises that either "It's too complex for me to understand, so henceforth God/Design!" (Argument from Personal Incredulity, Argument from Ignorance) or "I believe God exists, henceforth Intelligent Design/Creationism is the only viable answer." (Arguably Argument from Authority). So, yes. I completely understand were ID/Creationism proponents are coming from in their arguments. However, understanding their arguments does not mean that their arguments are actually worth any legitimate intellect in an actual scientific debate, no less. If you claim your idea's and belief's can withstand scientific rigor and inquiry, and they prove to be nothing less than a purely religious driven ideology, then scientists completely reserve the right to call them "idiots" for attempting to pass that ideology off as science.

I used that term as a substitute for the much longer "people who support evolutionary theory." Had I known it would cause you to throw a fit, I would have avoided it. I apologize.

You claim understanding, but you don't really understand. You continue to use insults despite the fact that dumb people who support evolutionary theory (better?) exist, as do smart creationists. Creationists can't just pull a 180 in their beliefs without consequences. Sure, some can and do make the transition just fine, but for others it would cause such a crisis of faith that I don't even know how they could manage. To some, faith is all that keeps them going. Scoff at that if you must, but know that doing so only emphasizes just how little you understand them. The right thing to do here is to present your case and let people make their own decisions, and then respect those decisions as their own. What many people who support evolutionary theory seem to think is that shouting at and insulting creationists is the only way to get them to accept your views when in fact it just does more harm than good. THAT is what I mean when I say UNDERSTANDING AND PATIENCE. If you still choose to mock and berate them, then I pity you far more than I do any creationist.

Now don't get me wrong, creationists pull the same crap I described above as much as people who support evolutionary theory do, but they are sorely underrepresented on The Escapist, so I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here.

The fact of the matter is, whether or not you believe that the Earth was made 6000 years ago or that we evolved from monkeys doesn't really matter much in life. And it certainly isn't worth fighting over. I think we can all agree on that, yes? Fighting bad?