The misinterpretation of evolution

[mrF00bar]

I would just like to point out that the theory of evolution has never been proven, yes there are different finds which lead us to believe that what we understand of evolution today, is what actually happened. Again, it has not been proven but I'm not saying it can't be true in some way or another.

 

[BrassButtons]

EVERYTHING in science is a theory.

No. Scientific theories are theories, all other things in science are not theories.

The word 'theory' in science does not mean 'an idea that has not been proven beyond all shadow of a doubt.' Rather, a theory is something which explains why observed phenomena happen the way they do. Laws, meanwhile, merely describe said phenomena. Usually multiple laws and facts are explained by a theory.

Evolution will probably always be a theory, as it can not be 100% proven through hard evidence.

See above. Any scientific theory that is proven 100% will remain a theory, because there's nothing else for it to be.

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.

That's really only a problem for people who are dead set on pretending that any minor gap in our knowledge is enough to completely topple the theory. Having gaps in the fossil record in no way weakens the case for evolution.

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

It's the only theory we have.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

I thought this was going to be a thread about the "missing link" (between chimps and humans, of course) misconception. I'm slightly disappointed that it's just a thread about a lack of belief in evolution. The main problem is it's teaching as an alternative to Creationism is not mandatory (and probably won't be for some time to come :/).

I honestly thought the "missing link" argument had long been proven wrong because of limiting factors: Anthropologists may not have found that missing link yet as there is so much of the earth to search through. Also because evolution takes so much time and so many generations of species, every generation would technically be the "missing link". Finally, I think we have already found that "missing link" between humans and great apes.

Yes, I know, that's why it's a misconception...

 

[weker]

The radiation example is a strange one, though. That's effectively cellular damage and isn't part of the discussion. That's an anomaly when it comes to evolution: I'm talking about the same monkey that mated with the same other money was about to birth a new generation of monkeys. Whether that monkey birthed them in a desert, an ocean, or in space they'd still be born the same way and have the same genes. Moving something from one area to another won't change the way it's genes are arranged.

Evolution is something pre-determined in the womb by the way the two parent's

"effectively cellular damage and isn't part of the discussion." It is part of mutation and is therefore relevant, as you proposed the environment doesn't effect evolution. Again "cellular damage" seems to just be a choice of perspectives.

"was about to birth a new generation of monkeys. Whether that monkey birthed them in a desert, an ocean, or in space they'd still be born the same way"
Evolution is not instantaneous and happens over time, in the situation you have made clearer now, evolution is not taking a noticeable effect due to the short time frame you have set.

"Evolution is something pre-determined in the womb by the way the two parent's" again evolution is not instant, as it happens over long periods of time were these "mutated" members of the species breed to become a separate species.

That is to say, moving an animal from one place to another won't make it, or any of it's relatives, morph to fit that environment. It is simply random mutations some of which happen to be more suited to that environment. By saying the animals adapts to it's environment is saying that it is driving it's own evolution with an intelligent design.

Yes I do believe you think Evolution can be used to define a change between two generations.
Evolution occurs over many generations, and is why most organisms will adapt (adaption is part of evolution like mutation and natural selection) by evolving into a more suited organism.

 

[Ampersand]

You sound worse than the religious guys.
'How DARE you disagree with my beliefs! THEY ARE FACTS!'

Evolution has no proof. It has EVIDENCE, but it doesn't have proof. I couldn't see any explanation of misinterpretation in your post, all I could see was whining.

Do you know what evidence is? From the way you worded this I doesn't seem like you do.

 

[weker]

You sound worse than the religious guys.
'How DARE you disagree with my beliefs! THEY ARE FACTS!'

Evolution has no proof. It has EVIDENCE, but it doesn't have proof. I couldn't see any explanation of misinterpretation in your post, all I could see was whining.

Do you know what evidence is? From the way you worded this I doesn't seem like you do.

If the question of evidence is called into question the shouldn't the term proof be called into question.

If something we have tested occurs 500 billion times yes, we can assume the answer will be yes, HOWEVER we have no way of knowing that after 500 billion the next one will be no until we have tested it ofc

 

[AngloDoom]

The radiation example is a strange one, though. That's effectively cellular damage and isn't part of the discussion. That's an anomaly when it comes to evolution: I'm talking about the same monkey that mated with the same other money was about to birth a new generation of monkeys. Whether that monkey birthed them in a desert, an ocean, or in space they'd still be born the same way and have the same genes. Moving something from one area to another won't change the way it's genes are arranged.

Evolution is something pre-determined in the womb by the way the two parent's

"effectively cellular damage and isn't part of the discussion." It is part of mutation and is therefore relevant, as you proposed the environment doesn't effect evolution. Again "cellular damage" seems to just be a choice of perspectives.

"was about to birth a new generation of monkeys. Whether that monkey birthed them in a desert, an ocean, or in space they'd still be born the same way"
Evolution is not instantaneous and happens over time, in the situation you have made clearer now, evolution is not taking a noticeable effect due to the short time frame you have set.

"Evolution is something pre-determined in the womb by the way the two parent's" again evolution is not instant, as it happens over long periods of time were these "mutated" members of the species breed to become a separate species.

Of course, I didn't mean to say that one day a monkey gave birth to a human - I meant that the changes were determined at birth. Sorry for the confusion there. Of course, these changes are often tiny and need a huge length of time and breeding to get the effect of future years. However, the environment makes no different to the developing creature inside the mother's womb. Creatures in a certain environment would not start birthing animals more fit to that said environment. The chance of our lovely little monkey example giving birth to a webbed-hand monkey is just as likely in the ocean as it is in a desert: it's just that the webbed-hand monkey may survive better in the ocean and obviously give birth to other adorable webbed-hand little monkeys. This would not, however, guarantee the monkey to become a fish in later life. It's just as likely to evolve in a way, through future generations, to lose those webbed hands as it is to get larger webs to swim better.

What I'm trying to clarify is that the environment does not change the ways in which the cells mutate (with exceptions such as radiation and mutagens in the environment), but the way in which those mutated offspring may or may not survive. A creature will not change to fit it's environment - it will change naturally and if it's lucky it'll suit it's environment.

I hope that clarifies my point?

 

[Something Amyss]

Most people who believe in evolution are not trying to prove Christianity wrong. Unless you are taking literally every word of the bible as literal truth, they are not mutually exclusive. One is the how, the other is the why.

Not to mention, people often slop other theories into evolution when pitting it against Christianity. Evolution does not even address where life came from originally (abiogenesis) or how the universe was created (Among which lies the Big Bang theory).

It's pretty straightforward and really doesn't have to prove Christianity wrong in the first place. But people do frequently make it far more complex than is necessary.

 

[zehydra]

"completely infallible"

nope. But for all practical purposes, sure.

 

[weker]

What I'm trying to clarify is that the environment does not change the ways in which the cells mutate (with exceptions such as radiation and mutagens in the environment)

I agree

but the way in which those mutated offspring may or may not survive.

I agree again, the environment will have a role in which offspring survive

A creature will not change to fit it's environment - it will change naturally and if it's lucky it'll suit it's environment.

"will not change to fit it's environment - it will change naturally" can you explain in more depth this part. It WILL NOT change yet it WILL change naturally? you said it will not change.

Again our debate spiked off environment effecting evolution. The environment plays a governing factor in Natural Selection, which is part of evolution, and therefore environment effects evolution through natural selection.

 

[AngloDoom]

What I'm trying to clarify is that the environment does not change the ways in which the cells mutate (with exceptions such as radiation and mutagens in the environment)

I agree

but the way in which those mutated offspring may or may not survive.

I agree again, the environment will have a role in which offspring survive

A creature will not change to fit it's environment - it will change naturally and if it's lucky it'll suit it's environment.

"will not change to fit it's environment - it will change naturally" can you explain in more depth this part. It WILL NOT change yet it WILL change naturally? you said it will not change.

Again our debate spiked off environment effecting evolution. The environment plays a governing factor in Natural Selection, which is part of evolution, and therefore environment effects evolution through natural selection.

Ah, there's where the confusion lies. I'm saying the environment will not change the way the baby is born or the genetics it happens to get smashed together and made out with. The baby will change because of the genetics of it's parents and those alone. Same parents different environment will still result in the same baby.

I'm saying genetics won't tailor-make a creature to fit it's environment, which you seem to support as well.

In case there's any confusion:

I agree that environment does change an entire species of animals due to the fact that it will make certain mutations within the species more beneficial than others. However, the environment will not make certain mutations happen by itself.

 

[Deacon Cole]

The simple fact of the matter is intelligent design has no more place in science class than Holocaust denial has in history class.

 

[weker]

I agree that environment does change an entire species of animals due to the fact that it will make certain mutations within the species more beneficial than others. However, the environment will not make certain mutations happen by itself.

Good to see were on the same page but i'm still hunting for the words "Environment EFFECTS Evolution" which you were hovering over XD

 

[TheDooD]

Aliens put use here. God made us in his image. We evolved from ooze, then plants, then fish, then reptiles, then basic mammals, and finally monkeys. Everything was a freak accident. We have infinite choice. Everything in our lives are planed out. There's a higher power controlling us. Augmentation defies Gods image eventhough it's possible to save millions with it's uses.

So have I covered everything about this thread?

 

[AngloDoom]

I agree that environment does change an entire species of animals due to the fact that it will make certain mutations within the species more beneficial than others. However, the environment will not make certain mutations happen by itself.

Good to see were on the same page but i'm still hunting for the words "Environment EFFECTS Evolution" which you were hovering over XD

Ah, I see what you mean now. Environment does indeed affect evolution, it just doesn't directly affect genetics.

We did it! Together! =D

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I've heard that some schools in America are not allowed to teach it.
Which is completely ridiculous.

I think the most people (who have been taught it properly) understand the general concept- the way that creatures gradually adapt over many generations etc, even if they don't understand the details.

The problem comes when people radically misunderstand it. I've seen clips of people saying things like 'how can you believe that monkeys just started walkin' one day and turned into people!' What? No-one said that. Gahhh

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

TL;DR

OK, clearly we need an expert opinion here. Seriously, you guys get too much of this man from me...

 

[michael87cn]

You can puff up the theory of evolution to be as factual a theory as much as you like, you can call it things like infallible and proven, tested, etc. But in the end it boils down to this:

People think (not know for certain) it's correct, based on what they've 'done' 'seen' and 'heard', via other people.

It can't be proven like the theory of gravity can, because no one has ever witnessed a creature evolve. Humans within recorded history have never evolved.

The Theory of evolution still requires an impossible miracle to have occurred, and in my mind that makes it a belief more than a fact. It won't be factual until we can go back in time and see the big bang happen, or in 10-100 million years if we still have documented history and can compare our 'evolved' selves to those of old.

The big bang states that matter created itself from nothing, matterless energy was formed from nothingness, and the entire universe was the result... also that life was the result of nothingness, and that giant rocks colliding with each other somehow produces life.

Go outside and bang two rocks together, you could do it for the rest of your life and you wouldn't create a new form of life... hell... take a spaceship to outerspace and try to make it authentic if you want... you still won't get life from that... just a lot of destruction (especially on the planetary scale)

I've always found it funny that evolution is supposed to take millions of years, conveniently large amount of time, no? When a human being can develop from nothing more than small proteins and nutrients into a 6ft tall mass of flesh in a matter of 20 years.

Surely after the couple thousand years of recorded history we could have evolved by now at least at a small level.

Read into this however you want: think i'm religious or creationist or something.

The truth is I know that one thing throughout our entire history has remained true..

People have always thought that their age was the modern age and that their 'science' was 100% correct and "infallible".

Entire civilizations have risen and fallen thinking that the world could not improve any more than it had.

We think that today, just because we have the power of electricity (really, the power source behind all of our 'improvements') that we're special and that we have it all correct.

We're wrong.

Everything is still a theory, and it's all based on the limitations of the incorrect human mind, biased and self-interested, it doesn't surprise me in the least that there are men that can think themselves their own creator.

Regardless it doesn't matter, because whether or not science/the theory of evolution is all correct and all true, it is leading into a bad end for humanity, and those who think it will be used for the greater good of all are sadly mistaken... the thing you cling to with all your hopes and dreams will one day destroy millions, possibly billions of lives.

Science, power and the human ego.

 

[Ampersand]

You sound worse than the religious guys.
'How DARE you disagree with my beliefs! THEY ARE FACTS!'

Evolution has no proof. It has EVIDENCE, but it doesn't have proof. I couldn't see any explanation of misinterpretation in your post, all I could see was whining.

Do you know what evidence is? From the way you worded this I doesn't seem like you do.

If the question of evidence is called into question the shouldn't the term proof be called into question.

If something we have tested occurs 500 billion times yes, we can assume the answer will be yes, HOWEVER we have no way of knowing that after 500 billion the next one will be no until we have tested it ofc

I'm pretty sure that we can say beyond reasonable doubt that the 500 billion and first test will be positive as well. :-/

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

I don't think the issue is that people don't understand evolution, it's more that they refuse to acknowledge it because it clashes so violently with thier beliefs.

Evolution itself is fairly simple;

To quote Dara O'Brien - 'Lots of random stuff just happened, and then the useful ones just hung around'