The misinterpretation of evolution

[Eclipse8804]

As a scientist I find the idea of creationism insane. I respect that certion Catholics believe that it is fact and that (and I love this) Catholic scientists have apparently proven that the earth is only 6000 years old. It is just simply not true. If the world is only 6000 years old then what are these fossils of huge creatures that roamed the earth? Were they in the bible somewhere to the back? It has no basis in fact what so ever. The bible barely has any basis in fact either, the earliest Gospel (out of the four that makes up the bible) was written, as far as I can remember, about 30 -40 years after the death of Jesus. The oldest was written some where between the 2nd and 3rd centuary. Is my lack of memory from something that I learned maybe 5 years ago no evidence enough that people can get things wrong if they have to write on something that happened over a 4 decades after the fact?


While I am a scientist I will be the first to admit that we do not have all the answers. We are filled with holes in our theorys and we cannot explain everything, however we can explain most things to within a reasonable margin of error. It is that that makes science able to take the moral high ground in the situation in this argument. We are based in logical conclusions while Creationists are based on faith. WIth the same level would I be equally correct to say "Well yeah, a wizard did it"?

 

[weker]

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.

Well ID doesn't attempt to disprove evolution and they are not comparable as ID can support evolution.
The only thing that could be disproved about ID from my point of view is the Intelligent part of the name.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

I'm a Crevolutionist. I believe that God likes dominoes and set up the entire universe to play through this. So, you can't really put Creationism at odds with Evolution. I think the problem is that people do put it as Evolution vs. Creationism.

I agree that a big problem is that people see creationism and evolution as mutually exclusive, while evolution actually says nothing about the origin of life. In fact, the mechanism of evolution does not contradict at all with the idea of creationism.

However, the idea posed by Darwin that evolution is responsible for almost all different species we currently have on earth, which was later confirmed by anthropological evidence, does contradict an aspect of the (literal interpretation of the) biblical creation story.

 

[weker]

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.

If your going to link such things with many variations and different interpretations Wikipedia is not a valid source. I do know that Wikipedia is highly moderate but in such a topic things can be edited and are to controversial for the mods to intervene.

 

[AngloDoom]

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.

Well ID doesn't attempt to disprove evolution and they are not comparable as ID can support evolution.
The only thing that could be disproved about ID from my point of view is the Intelligent part of the name.

Really? I thought the main crux of the theory of evolution was random genetic mutation with no guiding hand? That's at odds with ID very much, if I interpret it correct?

I see intelligent design as saying "A monkey has too short arms to climb, so he grows longer arms and becomes dominant as a species." On the other hand, I see evolution as going "The monkey who happens to be born with longer arms happens to survive and breed more until longer-armed monkeys are dominant as a species."]

Unless, I've not interpreted ID correctly?

 

[Abengoshis]

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.

Just to be annoying, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We're apes, we evolved from previous apes, not previous monkeys.

Aha, but I believe apes evolved from monkeys! After all, we still have tailbones!

Also it matters a lot to medicine if you're that kind of scientist.

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.

Actually I don't think they did, they split from the same ancestor, we didn't evolve from them.

 

[Dreaming Dan]

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.

If your going to link such things with many variations and different interpretations Wikipedia is not a valid source. I do know that Wikipedia is highly moderate but in such a topic things can be edited and are to controversial for the mods to intervene.

Fair point about wiki being a junk source but it was simply to illustrate that you can read up on the subject without taxing your search skills.

 

[GenericAmerican]

I have a question.

Why is any of this important? Why is knowing what we evolved from, or what created us such a big fucking deal?

I have a new religion, it's called "fuckitallism"

In this religion we worship nothing, we don't have to pay tithes, we don't have to pray, we don't have to worry about sinning, we don't have to study books...we just utter the sacred phrase, "fuck it all, i don't care" if asked about our religion.

 

[weker]

Really? I thought the main crux of the theory of evolution was random genetic mutation with no guiding hand? That's at odds with ID very much, if I interpret it correct?

I see intelligent design as saying "A monkey has too short arms to climb, so he grows longer arms and becomes dominant as a species." On the other hand, I see evolution as going "The monkey who happens to be born with longer arms happens to survive and breed more until longer-armed monkeys are dominant as a species."]

Unless, I've not interpreted ID correctly?

"with no guiding hand" well you can class their environment, and organisms being a "guiding hand"

ID just says an Intelligent being created everything the way it is, in other words we were pre-programmed to evolve. "A monkey has too short arms to climb, so he grows longer arms and becomes dominant as a species." this statement suggest the monkey suddenly becomes Stretch Armstrong

ID again doesn't conflict with evolution itself, it is just theist or agnostic views on what cannot be explained, which is again the place where Im fine with these views being located.

 

[Vindictus]

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.

Well ID doesn't attempt to disprove evolution and they are not comparable as ID can support evolution.
The only thing that could be disproved about ID from my point of view is the Intelligent part of the name.

Really? I thought the main crux of the theory of evolution was random genetic mutation with no guiding hand? That's at odds with ID very much, if I interpret it correct?

I see intelligent design as saying "A monkey has too short arms to climb, so he grows longer arms and becomes dominant as a species." On the other hand, I see evolution as going "The monkey who happens to be born with longer arms happens to survive and breed more until longer-armed monkeys are dominant as a species."]

Unless, I've not interpreted ID correctly?

Yeah, but who is to say God isn't behind the genetic mutations? Personally, I don't believe that, but it can be said, albeit it's a pointless idea to push.

Abiogenesis is what Creationists should be going after, but even it has more evidence than Creationism.

 

[weker]

I have a question.

Why is any of this important? Why is knowing what we evolved from, or what created us such a big fucking deal?

I have a new religion, it's called "fuckitallism"

In this religion we worship nothing, we don't have to pay tithes, we don't have to pray, we don't have to worry about sinning, we don't have to study books...we just utter the sacred phrase, "fuck it all, i don't care" if asked about our religion.

it's the pursuit of truth, and is something that many are driven by.
It is also something to stop silly ideas that such as... were all intergalactic space monkeys who crashed their space scooter while on a pizza run.

Abiogenesis is what Creationists should be going after, but even it has more evidence than Creationism.

Don't follow you, isn't Abiogenesis just the idea that when a combination of matter started rubbing together it created life's constant chemical cycle.

 

[Vindictus]

Don't follow you, isn't Abiogenesis just the idea that when a combination of matter started rubbing together it created life's constant chemical cycle.

Yes. Although, I think the 'seeding from meteors' theory is more popular.

 

[weker]

Don't follow you, isn't Abiogenesis just the idea that when a combination of matter started rubbing together it created life's constant chemical cycle.

Yes. Although, I think the 'seeding from meteors' theory is more popular.

But this theory still doesn't exclude Abiogenesis as the reaction could have occurred elsewhere as I personally think Abiogenesis didn't happen on earth as I think a hotter location would have made the reaction more likely to occur.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

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.

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.

No, not them. Creationism as a "scientific" ideology is what I consider to be inferior in every way to Evolution. And being consistent in my logic of such, Creationists that repeatedly ignore the mountain of evidence of Evolutionary theory before them on a daily basis are willfully ignoring the potential intellect they have to understand the evidence before them. What good is faith or belief if those two never mature into more informed belief's and stances of faith based upon the evidence reality itself around us has presented us, and become stagnant due to fear of new information that may challenge previously held information (opposite the situation in which science itself openly accepts on a daily basis)?

Nothing. And, good, I thought you might. It's a reasonable stance.

 

[Halceon]

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.

You know, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, the question of selective adaptation is not a matter of opinion. It either is testably true or testably false. Would you ask for the beliefs of flat-earth fanatics to be included in a geography book?

 

[AngloDoom]

"with no guiding hand" well you can class their environment, and organisms being a "guiding hand"

ID just says an Intelligent being created everything the way it is, in other words we were pre-programmed to evolve. "A monkey has too short arms to climb, so he grows longer arms and becomes dominant as a species." this statement suggest the monkey suddenly becomes Stretch Armstrong

ID again doesn't conflict with evolution itself, it is just theist or agnostic views on what cannot be explained, which is again the place where Im fine with these views being located.

The environment is not considered in evolution, though. A monkey in one environment will not mutate differently than a monkey in another: it's just that those mutations will thrive in different areas. You can say the environment 'guides' the evolution, but that's not really 'guiding', that's being shaped. It's like saying that if I cram my foot into a too small shoe it's being 'guided' into growing crippled bones.

I just see adding 'God' to the equation is unnecessary. It's like saying "when you cook a pastry at 200 degrees Celsius, the sugars will crystallise inside as the pastry hardens and it becomes sweeter" and then stepping in and saying "because God said it does". We've already figured out what's going on, adding another unprovable, unnecessary element to it is strange. Why stop there? Why not say Buddha tells God to evolve the creatures in certain ways, so he sends Hades off to splice some genes in the lab with Thor?

Yeah, but who is to say God isn't behind the genetic mutations? Personally, I don't believe that, but it can be said, albeit it's a pointless idea to push.

Abiogenesis is what Creationists should be going after, but even it has more evidence than Creationism.

I suppose what I wrote above applies to you too, although you already appear to be on the same wavelength as me.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

Well, in my time (as in right fucking now and the past 10 years), evolution was such an obvious truth to me and everyone around me (including even the religious people) that it's credibility was never brought up. Not that I remember, anyway.
The basics of the theory (by now, it's probably safe to say that it is not a mere "theory", as it has been proven so thoroughly that it'd require something truly earth-shattering to change it's status) were taught in school, noone ever questioned them. Those who are interested in such things look into it further.

In short, the whole business of questioning how evolution works (or if it is an incorrect theory) is something... alien to me. Cultures are different, I guess.

Evolution will probably always be a theory, as it can not be 100% proven through hard evidence. It is hard to doubt the evidence that exists but the problems lie with the fact that although slow evolution is constant, which mean there are only a few living species today that can be actively used to study it. Additionally the core problem that stops evolution from becoming a theorum is the problem of missing links, there are thousands of them, and finding them all is almost impossible.

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

 

[Jake Martinez]

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.

As a Catholic you should know that the Church support Evolution. Unlike Fundementalist baptist and protestant sects in America, the Church support evolution as a scientifically sound theory about how life originated. In fact, the Church does not seek to explain how life was created. Science can do that. The Church instead exists to give guidance on why life exists.

Whenver I hear a Catholic questioning evolution I want to smack 'em upside the head. I had 12 years of Catholic Jesuit education and evolution was never presented to me as anything other than a valid scientific theory for the creation of life, with an enormous amount of scientific evidence backing it up.

 

[y1fella]

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'd just like to say that your basic assumption, that anyone who knows the evidence has no option but to believe in evolution, is incorrect. I'm a 6 day creationist christian and I know just about as much about evolution as anyone who isn't themselves a palaeontologist or biologist.
I'd also like to ask why is it sad that people don't believe in evolution? as far as I'm aware by atheistic principles there's no real reason for you to... (I don't know any other word for it so I'm just going to say it) evangelize atheism.
Also I find your assumption that I'm a christian cause I'm an idiot more than just a little offensive. While you didn't say that explicitly I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one who got that impression.

 

[UnknownGunslinger]

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.

It is sad, and the numbers are far worst:

According to this years Gallup Poll only 39% of Americans accept the theory of Evolution.
That means 6 out of 10 people reject the Evolution theory despite a century and a half of overwhelming evidences
Yet somehow even those 39% are extraordinary for America!
Back in the 50's Creationism was overwhelmingly winning against Evolution theory in Schools.
It took the launch of Sputnik in 1957 to scare the Eisenhower administration that the Soviets were more advanced than them.
It was thanks to the Sputnik crisis and the National Defense Education Act that poured billions of dollars into the U.S. education system, that Creationism was rejected from school curriculum and Evolution was even taught!

To paraphrase MovieBob: History. Is. WEIRD
It took the freaking Cold war for the U.S. government to intervene in schools and say:
"Hey, maybe we should try to teach those kids some science?"

I think the current problem in America, can accurately be depicted by the very terms used.
Like "Believing in Evolution". What the hell is that?
The poll I cited asked the question "do you believe in Evolution" to its participants!?

It's as if you have to choose to "believe" either in Creationism or Evolution.
The very phrase warrants you to choose between the two!
And that phrasing I think is what ticks off religious people.

Because if you believe in a religion that religion tells you to not believe in anything else, and if Evolution needs to be believed, then it must be against your religion, and there for untrue!

But it doesn't have to be, because Evolution is a fact based theory that doesn't necessitate believe in order to work!
I dont see why Evolution has to clash with your religios beliefs at all!
It's all rather silly. You cant change the world you live in just because you dont like the way it is, or it's not the way you thought it was!