We feel a force near a mass. We have no idea what it is, but we know we can feel something, so there should be a reason. We call that reason 'gravity', but we don't know what the reason is yet, we can only apply it.KoalaKid said:
The misinterpretation of evolution
- Thread starter Flac00
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just to be annoying, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We're apes, we evolved from previous apes, not previous monkeys.Jack the Potato said:
Also it matters a lot to medicine if you're that kind of scientist.
Fascinating, this man believes that because gravity is negligible on a very small scale that it must be caused by an "average" of unknown atomic effects which are not gravity but make up gravity when taken in large amounts (like how temperature is caused by the individual motions of atoms.) He could be right even though his theory doesn't seem very likely to be true as individual particles do have mass and we're pretty sure that mass causes gravity.KoalaKid said:
More on Topic: I'd say that the common misinterpretations of evolution mostly come from misinformation told by creationists to further their agendas.
<spoiler=I'm just going to put this right here>http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20091016.gifDeshara said:
Until it starts making testable predictions, and has a strong body of evidence behind it that support the predictions Creation should stay away from the scientific discussion.
It's not an accurate substitute, so stay with the proper (even if longer to type) terminology if you will.Jack the Potato said:
If even the dumbest person in existence can understand and support Evolutionary theory, then what does that say about smart Creationists? I don't care how dumb the person is. If they can even minimally understand Evolutionary theory and support it, then they have realized the realistic theory either way.Jack the Potato said:
That's not my problem if they are that deep in an ideology based upon faith that they cannot accept reality around them that has been proven by science without having some sort of brain aneurism in the process. They learn to accept reality, or they don't and continue to be proven wrong when they spout off incorrect "scientific" assertions.Jack the Potato said:
I respect their right to make a decision, but I do not have to respect the subject of that decision. I do not respect Creationism on scientific grounds, and never will. They can believe in whatever religious aspect of their lives they wish, as long as they do not attempt to pass it off as something it very obviously is not.Jack the Potato said:
I am nor shouting or insulting Creationists. Making a factual statement about scientific discovery and research concerning the reality of the natural world is neither, it simply is what it is. If they choose to get offended over it, that is not my problem, but their own.Jack the Potato said:
Also, I don't particularly care about your pity. It does not affect my life or my arguments on this forum, so please save it for someone whom might actually care more.
Simply playing Devil's Advocate does not make your arguments for Creationists any more valid than if you really were a Creationist. The majority of the scientific community accepts Evolution as the valid theory on the natural world around us, and that is what most importantly matters.Jack the Potato said:
Evolved from a common ancestor with monkeys, not from them. Minor correction there.Jack the Potato said:
Also, I have no issue with Creationists believing as they do, as long as they do not attempt to pass Creationism off as science. Once they accept that, I go back to not caring (though still finding their belief's rather absurd, but that is an entirely different discussion). Fortunately, the majority of them seem to realize that. The loud minority of them that attempt to place Creationism into science labs and public classrooms not religious studies, are the one's that I pick my battles with.
Aha, but I believe apes evolved from monkeys! After all, we still have tailbones!Abengoshis said:
Does it? A stomach is still a stomach, whether or not you believe it is the process of millions of years of mutations and adaptations or something created in a day by God. Where you believe it came from does not change what you know it is. I've never seen a creationist deny the existence of genetic conditions or diseases, though if there are any I'm pretty sure they are the tiniest minority.
So, this is fun.
I'm a biotechnology student and know quite a bit about evolution. I'm not an expert, but I've done a lot of reading on the subject and I think it's fair to say I have a deeper understanding of the mechanics involved than your average person on the street.
And a lot of people in this thread are getting stuff wrong, even people defending evolution. I'm not going to quote any examples to avoid embarrassing anyone, but a lot of you who are sticking up for the theory (thanks by the way) don't understand it. My advice: buy this book [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0199230854/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314525441&sr=8-1] and read it cover to cover.
As for the other side of the coin, I'm seeing a lot of very misguided arguments against evolution. Let's dive in:
Intelligent Design advocates are not scientists because they aren't interested in doing science. Take a look at how organizations like the Discovery Institute spend their money and you'll see they're more interested in public outreach and lobbying than confirming their hypothesis. That's because this is a political movement, not a scientific debate. They're trying to force their ideas into the classroom for ideological reasons without going through the same process of confirmation and testing that any other hypothesis would have to pass before gaining such a degree of acceptance.
I would also invite you to give your definition of the scientific method, because I can assure you evolution has been tested using it, continuously for the past 150 years.
As for testable predictions, if you want to see some of those you should check out this book that came out awhile back [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selection-Preservation-Favoured-Struggle-ebook/dp/B000JML90Y/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314526172&sr=1-3].
It's also not a religious issue. Many of the people who don't believe in evolution are going on to try to stifle the teaching of the theory in schools, or (as we've seen) to promote nonsense alongside it. We can't afford to say "it's a personal matter, we'll leave it to the individual" because the creationists and ID advocates are running well-funded and popular campaigns to force their religious beliefs on children in the guise of science.
And finally, because this is getting way longer than I intended:
That's not hyperbole, I'd seriously like to have a discussion with someone who can intelligently defend creationism. Link them to the thread so they can join in, or have one of them PM me.
I'm a biotechnology student and know quite a bit about evolution. I'm not an expert, but I've done a lot of reading on the subject and I think it's fair to say I have a deeper understanding of the mechanics involved than your average person on the street.
And a lot of people in this thread are getting stuff wrong, even people defending evolution. I'm not going to quote any examples to avoid embarrassing anyone, but a lot of you who are sticking up for the theory (thanks by the way) don't understand it. My advice: buy this book [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0199230854/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314525441&sr=8-1] and read it cover to cover.
As for the other side of the coin, I'm seeing a lot of very misguided arguments against evolution. Let's dive in:
No it isn't, because one of those ideas is wrong. This is not a matter of opinion- the theory of evolution has been proven true to the highest extent that it's possible for a scientific theory to be, while intelligent design has yet to put forward a single piece of verifiable evidence that's stood up to scrutiny.
Intelligent Design advocates are not scientists because they aren't interested in doing science. Take a look at how organizations like the Discovery Institute spend their money and you'll see they're more interested in public outreach and lobbying than confirming their hypothesis. That's because this is a political movement, not a scientific debate. They're trying to force their ideas into the classroom for ideological reasons without going through the same process of confirmation and testing that any other hypothesis would have to pass before gaining such a degree of acceptance.
It's not yet accepted as a theory? If you asked a biologist- any biologist, anywhere- do you think they'd agree with that statement?
I would also invite you to give your definition of the scientific method, because I can assure you evolution has been tested using it, continuously for the past 150 years.
It provides several mechanisms- mutation, genetic drift, epigenetics, natural selection, sexual selection.
As for testable predictions, if you want to see some of those you should check out this book that came out awhile back [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selection-Preservation-Favoured-Struggle-ebook/dp/B000JML90Y/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314526172&sr=1-3].
Polls have consistently shown that something like 40% of Americans believe that God created us as we are and that nothing else has played a part since the dawn of time.
It's also not a religious issue. Many of the people who don't believe in evolution are going on to try to stifle the teaching of the theory in schools, or (as we've seen) to promote nonsense alongside it. We can't afford to say "it's a personal matter, we'll leave it to the individual" because the creationists and ID advocates are running well-funded and popular campaigns to force their religious beliefs on children in the guise of science.
I understand where you're coming from here, and the sentiment of wanting the two to co-exist is noble, but science and religion can't help but be in competition because many religions hold as absolute, immutable truth ideas that science has proven wrong. There's no way to reconcile that without one or either side compromising themselves.
The mitochondrial eve (I really wish they'd come up with a better name for that) isn't "missing". Biologists have already traced back our mitochondrial DNA to our last common ancestor.
And finally, because this is getting way longer than I intended:
I would welcome a debate with any of them.
That's not hyperbole, I'd seriously like to have a discussion with someone who can intelligently defend creationism. Link them to the thread so they can join in, or have one of them PM me.
I doubt the discovery of these things would effect the theory of evolution at all, as it has been tried and tested so many many times to actually allow it to be described as a scientific theory (one of the highest awards in science) Evolution is proven in the same way that we know water boils and we need oxygen to breath (with a few less constant remindersAsita said:
)The only reason Evolution is questioned in such severity today is due to it contradicting the Bible but don't get me started on the amount of contradictions and hypocrisy that comes from there.
I can support this stance. I'm as against creationists shoving their viewpoints in our faces as much as you. I would like to point out, however, that while you said you weren't insulting creationists, you repeatedly inferred that they were dumb or inferior throughout your post. Just saying.ShadowsofHope said:
For a start...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Read it before you start posting opinions rather than facts!
Evolution as far a science goes it pretty cut and dry. We have a genetic trait that is advantageous (in some cases not)it makes us fitter and more likely to survive (or be able to find a mate) traits are then passed on to your offspring....
Repeat this over a long time and some of these traits that began as one off mutations in one individual cold then make there way into more of the population, this mutation could be something as simple as a resistance to a disease. however if most of the population are struck down by said disease then the mutation has a selective advantage and become more common in the population. The survivors of said horrible disease could be said to have "evolved" in order to survive the threat.
This is a really crude example thrown together while I am writing an essay on co-evolution in bacteria.. pick holes in it if you want there will probably be room to if you look hard enough. People are allowed their own opinions they just aren't always right. educate yourself on both sides if you are going to make statements about one over the other or you just come of as argumentative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Read it before you start posting opinions rather than facts!
Evolution as far a science goes it pretty cut and dry. We have a genetic trait that is advantageous (in some cases not)it makes us fitter and more likely to survive (or be able to find a mate) traits are then passed on to your offspring....
Repeat this over a long time and some of these traits that began as one off mutations in one individual cold then make there way into more of the population, this mutation could be something as simple as a resistance to a disease. however if most of the population are struck down by said disease then the mutation has a selective advantage and become more common in the population. The survivors of said horrible disease could be said to have "evolved" in order to survive the threat.
This is a really crude example thrown together while I am writing an essay on co-evolution in bacteria.. pick holes in it if you want there will probably be room to if you look hard enough. People are allowed their own opinions they just aren't always right. educate yourself on both sides if you are going to make statements about one over the other or you just come of as argumentative.
I am a Christian (Protestant) and a Science teacher, here are some common misinterpretations concerning society and evolution i come up against from friends and in the class.
Evolution denies the existence of God
-False, it only denies the 'literal' translation of 2 chapters in Genesis. Some people treat Genesis as a different type of narrative, and others who believe in a God may not be Jewish/Christian/Islam.
Evolved species are better than unevolved species
-Not true, many of the 'unevolved species' are actually able to survive better than others. Sharks and crocodiles are perfect examples.
Fundamentalist religious groups are against evolution on the basis of Genesis
-False, the Roman Catholic Church officially recognises teaching evolution in Catholic schools. Islam also encourages the teaching of evolution.
Evolution is about survival of the fittest
-False, Sometimes the fittest can be the ones most vulnerable. Epidemics with new viruses reveal that usually the fittest people die fastest. 'Fitness' relies on an unchanging world.
Evolution and geology disprove creation
- false, for two reasons, firstly these processes can be started by a God. Secondly a god would be powerful enough to create these processes in mid swing.
Evolution can not be proven as we have not experience enough of it.
-False, there is enough evidence in nature over the past hundred years that proves evolution repeatedly, to ignore this would be naive. DNA analysis of dead organisms have shown many modern species also have evolved over the last hundred years or so.
The theory announced by Darwin and Mendel was perfect
-False, as a science evolutionary theory always can be developed to be more accurate. in fact Evolutionary theory has changed to a large degree in just the last 20 years.
Finally here is one that is true:
It is not possible to change from one species to another suddenly
-True, in fact changes occur in small, very small jumps. this is similar to how racial groups have different features (although the difference hasn't been enough to make new species)
Evolution denies the existence of God
-False, it only denies the 'literal' translation of 2 chapters in Genesis. Some people treat Genesis as a different type of narrative, and others who believe in a God may not be Jewish/Christian/Islam.
Evolved species are better than unevolved species
-Not true, many of the 'unevolved species' are actually able to survive better than others. Sharks and crocodiles are perfect examples.
Fundamentalist religious groups are against evolution on the basis of Genesis
-False, the Roman Catholic Church officially recognises teaching evolution in Catholic schools. Islam also encourages the teaching of evolution.
Evolution is about survival of the fittest
-False, Sometimes the fittest can be the ones most vulnerable. Epidemics with new viruses reveal that usually the fittest people die fastest. 'Fitness' relies on an unchanging world.
Evolution and geology disprove creation
- false, for two reasons, firstly these processes can be started by a God. Secondly a god would be powerful enough to create these processes in mid swing.
Evolution can not be proven as we have not experience enough of it.
-False, there is enough evidence in nature over the past hundred years that proves evolution repeatedly, to ignore this would be naive. DNA analysis of dead organisms have shown many modern species also have evolved over the last hundred years or so.
The theory announced by Darwin and Mendel was perfect
-False, as a science evolutionary theory always can be developed to be more accurate. in fact Evolutionary theory has changed to a large degree in just the last 20 years.
Finally here is one that is true:
It is not possible to change from one species to another suddenly
-True, in fact changes occur in small, very small jumps. this is similar to how racial groups have different features (although the difference hasn't been enough to make new species)
I am a Christian (Protestant) and a Science teacher, here are some common misinterpretations concerning society and evolution i come up against from friends and in the class.
Evolution denies the existence of God
-False, it only denies the 'literal' translation of 2 chapters in Genesis. Some people treat Genesis as a different type of narrative, and others who believe in a God may not be Jewish/Christian/Islam.
Evolved species are better than unevolved species
-Not true, many of the 'unevolved species' are actually able to survive better than others. Sharks and crocodiles are perfect examples.
Fundamentalist religious groups are against evolution on the basis of Genesis
-False, the Roman Catholic Church officially recognises teaching evolution in Catholic schools. Islam also encourages the teaching of evolution.
Evolution is about survival of the fittest
-False, Sometimes the fittest can be the ones most vulnerable. Epidemics with new viruses reveal that usually the fittest people die fastest. 'Fitness' relies on an unchanging world.
Evolution and geology disprove creation
- false, for two reasons, firstly these processes can be started by a God. Secondly a god would be powerful enough to create these processes in mid swing.
Evolution can not be proven as we have not experience enough of it.
-False, there is enough evidence in nature over the past hundred years that proves evolution repeatedly, to ignore this would be naive. DNA analysis of dead organisms have shown many modern species also have evolved over the last hundred years or so.
The theory announced by Darwin and Mendel was perfect
-False, as a science evolutionary theory always can be developed to be more accurate. in fact Evolutionary theory has changed to a large degree in just the last 20 years.
Finally here is one that is true:
It is not possible to change from one species to another suddenly
-True, in fact changes occur in small, very small jumps. this is similar to how racial groups have different features (although the difference hasn't been enough to make new species)
Evolution denies the existence of God
-False, it only denies the 'literal' translation of 2 chapters in Genesis. Some people treat Genesis as a different type of narrative, and others who believe in a God may not be Jewish/Christian/Islam.
Evolved species are better than unevolved species
-Not true, many of the 'unevolved species' are actually able to survive better than others. Sharks and crocodiles are perfect examples.
Fundamentalist religious groups are against evolution on the basis of Genesis
-False, the Roman Catholic Church officially recognises teaching evolution in Catholic schools. Islam also encourages the teaching of evolution.
Evolution is about survival of the fittest
-False, Sometimes the fittest can be the ones most vulnerable. Epidemics with new viruses reveal that usually the fittest people die fastest. 'Fitness' relies on an unchanging world.
Evolution and geology disprove creation
- false, for two reasons, firstly these processes can be started by a God. Secondly a god would be powerful enough to create these processes in mid swing.
Evolution can not be proven as we have not experience enough of it.
-False, there is enough evidence in nature over the past hundred years that proves evolution repeatedly, to ignore this would be naive. DNA analysis of dead organisms have shown many modern species also have evolved over the last hundred years or so.
The theory announced by Darwin and Mendel was perfect
-False, as a science evolutionary theory always can be developed to be more accurate. in fact Evolutionary theory has changed to a large degree in just the last 20 years.
Finally here is one that is true:
It is not possible to change from one species to another suddenly
-True, in fact changes occur in small, very small jumps. this is similar to how racial groups have different features (although the difference hasn't been enough to make new species)
Intelligent design is the religious argument that something created everything the way its designed, such as the way we evolve and change as well as why we think this way and grow.Titan Buttons said:
It is religion conforming partly to science and it is in the situation where science cannot comment, which is where I believe religion belongs.
Wow, 308 posts in a day. Well, maybe 's not too late to throw in my 92% unprofessional opinion on this subject.
First, the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate is not the first Scientific Debate that has rached this critical mass of controversy. The Ptolemetric (Geocentric) Planetary Rotation Theory vs the Copernican (Heliocentric) Planetary Rotation Theory, Wave Theory vs the Theory of Relativity, and Steady State (Static Universe) vs. Expansion Theory (The "Big Bang" Theory) have all had their respective stay in the spotlight. With that perspective it comes of no surprise that there is a wide divergence with these theories not only amongst the populous but even physicists themselves.
That said, I cannot find myself able to accurately defend Intelligent Design for a couple simple reasons, which can be summed up as: "ID is inherently unscientific (as far of what we know of science)." What I mean by this is that Intelligent Design fails in all ways as a Scientific Theory. My reasoning of course comes from the basic tenants of the Scientific Method.
First: The Theory must have empirical evidence which can be recreated and tested using the Scientific Method.
Second: Such evidence must be Falsifiable (Arguable and overall disprovable if evidence were to come up to the contrary.)
Third: Such evidence must not hold a Supernatural Premise.
In all ways Intelligent Design fails in this aspect as it has absolutely no evidence to support it.
Stop hold on ID theorists. Don't quote me Watchmaker Arguments, don't ask me about Mitochondrial Flagellum propulsion and for your God's sake don't quote me Bible Scriptures. We both know that that does not qualify as empirical evidence or even falsifying evidence and it is intellectually dishonest present that as proof for an intelligent designer. The fact is: to this date there is virtually no indication of an Intelligent Designer's presence in our universe and until such evidence arises we both know that it is ultimately futile to hold Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory. Ipso Facto end of story.
I guess in the end Intelligent Design simply does not hold up as a theory (as we know it today). If the day comes that such evidence is presented that it is impossible to believe such an Intelligent Designer does not exist I may change my opinion on this subject but as it stands today I find it completely intellectually vacuous, with no sustainable weight of it's own.
First, the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate is not the first Scientific Debate that has rached this critical mass of controversy. The Ptolemetric (Geocentric) Planetary Rotation Theory vs the Copernican (Heliocentric) Planetary Rotation Theory, Wave Theory vs the Theory of Relativity, and Steady State (Static Universe) vs. Expansion Theory (The "Big Bang" Theory) have all had their respective stay in the spotlight. With that perspective it comes of no surprise that there is a wide divergence with these theories not only amongst the populous but even physicists themselves.
That said, I cannot find myself able to accurately defend Intelligent Design for a couple simple reasons, which can be summed up as: "ID is inherently unscientific (as far of what we know of science)." What I mean by this is that Intelligent Design fails in all ways as a Scientific Theory. My reasoning of course comes from the basic tenants of the Scientific Method.
First: The Theory must have empirical evidence which can be recreated and tested using the Scientific Method.
Second: Such evidence must be Falsifiable (Arguable and overall disprovable if evidence were to come up to the contrary.)
Third: Such evidence must not hold a Supernatural Premise.
In all ways Intelligent Design fails in this aspect as it has absolutely no evidence to support it.
Stop hold on ID theorists. Don't quote me Watchmaker Arguments, don't ask me about Mitochondrial Flagellum propulsion and for your God's sake don't quote me Bible Scriptures. We both know that that does not qualify as empirical evidence or even falsifying evidence and it is intellectually dishonest present that as proof for an intelligent designer. The fact is: to this date there is virtually no indication of an Intelligent Designer's presence in our universe and until such evidence arises we both know that it is ultimately futile to hold Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory. Ipso Facto end of story.
I guess in the end Intelligent Design simply does not hold up as a theory (as we know it today). If the day comes that such evidence is presented that it is impossible to believe such an Intelligent Designer does not exist I may change my opinion on this subject but as it stands today I find it completely intellectually vacuous, with no sustainable weight of it's own.
evolution is an interesting prospect and is fascinating to look on just how nature can adapt, thing is in your origanal statement you say that the rise of Creationism may be partially responsible for that startling percentage of people who refuse to believe evolution. one thing that people need to realise is that Evolution is not a religeon it is a scientific hypothesis on the development of living organisms over time. The same applies to religeon, which is more of a philosiphy. There is room for both of these Ideas to coincide, although Im not saying that they should be tuaght in the same classroom, however im just producing a notion that they can get along. Thats something my school sort of acts on, Its catholic but our science teacher asks us to leave any beliefs outside the classroom, however the class and the teacher did have a quick discussion on the topic and he showed us that these this theory and this philosiphy can co exist
Why?Delsana said:
I was going to stay out of this topic, but why is it that people who believe in evolution have huge amounts of fact and evidence to support their opinion, but then people who believe in intelligent design win by default because they have one less piece of information than they'd like them to.
How about a big graph/chart? A list of evidence for evolution, and a list of evidence that supports creationist ideas. I'm pretty sure the results will sway massively toward evolution as it is, in every practical sense, proven.