The misinterpretation of evolution

[SilentCom]

Who says that creationsim completely excludes evolution? Evolution speaks of organisms evolving but does not explain how existence came about. Also, it is bias ignorance you display for stating evolution as being corrupted by religion and being the norm. People have different views and for the things that we can't understand, we are forced to find some kind of belief. Frankly, human beings aren't defined by our knowledge but instead by our ignorance.

 

[kouriichi]

I believe we were created by something beyond our comprehension.

I could call it "god" just as much as i could call it "fate", "luck", "metaphysical-aliens", or "The flying spaghetti monster".

The chances of our planet being in perfect distance of the sun to have constant liquid water on the surface, have life develop on it from thoughtless chains of atoms, to develop the perfect oxygen atmosphere and then on top of that, for us to NOT be destroyed by one of the countless (literally countless) meteors hurling through space is beyond the realm of "just happening".

And Creationism isnt the belief it happened in a matter of days. Its just that a supernatural being started it. And yes, "evolution" did most of the work after the foundation was laid.

Life gets wiped out pretty commonly on earth, and it's 'perfect oxygen levels' haven't always been here, only after a major extinction. The point is that the earth isn't and wasn't made for our perfect standards. It's literally a coincidence that the conditions were right for life to begin and adapt to the constant hazards. Do you really think that in the universe, with countless galaxies, unthinkable amounts of stars and mind-boggling amounts of planets that there wouldn't be at least one planet with the right requirements for life to evolve from nothing more than a chain of acids?

Lol. I mean for us to exist.
Yes, its all scientifically explainable.
But that doesnt make it anyless random. What are the chances we, HUMANS sit here to day?
The chances of life existing on a planet alone are so astronomical its not even worth knowing.

Its not that it all happened. Its that it all happened perfectly, for us to exist. If the planet were 10 degrees hotter when the protoplasmic creatures were first forming, we might not even exist. The evolution of them could be so radically different we wouldnt even resemble humans.

The "coincidence" of it all happening one after another after another for billions of years is what makes it so..... unbelievable. That everything is happened the way it should for us to be here now.

Yes it did. You're not actually making a point here, just reinforcing how baffled you are by the statistics and the odds. If the planet were ten degrees hotter, then life may not even still exist in this hypothetical earth by now, but the point is when you compare it to the astronomical, unimaginably horribly gigantic amount of planets in the universe, it seems more probable that we exist. No reason to run off needing a divine reason for it. We're the result of pretty much just physics.

Well thats the thing about it though. For us to exist, an uncountable amount of coincidences would have to occur. The odds of it happening are so outrageous, there is no number for it.

I'm having trouble understanding your argument. You're saying that the chances are so low that you just can't believe it. But, the chances for life on planets is also extremely high, due to the sheer number of planets in the universe. It's inevitable that a planet will have just the perfect amount of everything. Earth just happened to be that planet. We know this because, well, we're alive.

Well the chance for life on planets isnt high, because almost no planets have the ability to support life.

xD But yes, its inevitable that a planet would have life on it. But then the chances of it evolving and becoming intelligent life. How many species have been on this planet? How many of which have wrote books, formed government, and built spaceships to take us off the planet?

As i said. Yes, its BOUND to happen sometime. But that doesnt make it ANY less amazing. We only know of one other planet that can "possibly" support life. And even then, chances are it will never be intelligent.

 

[Ritter315]

Ok heres the thing: The idea that evolution has been proven...IS a misconception about evolution. The problem is that evolutionists tend to think that if you dont agree with the entire spectrum of naturalist origins of the universe, than you're a creationist, ID nut or you're just stupid. Not at all.

Here's the facts as I and many others understand them: 1 If it ever DID take place, it isnt happening now (As far as anyone can demonstrate) 2. The odds of it happening (or happened) are VERY VERY slim. Its very unlikely and not many evolutionists will admit that. And even if you contest that its not unlikely than you have a bigger problem, because if the odds are good than we would have seen CONCRETE evidence of evolution.

The only part of evolution that has the data to support itself is natural nelection and the resulting speciation that comes from it. Basically, no amount of ash on a tree has ever turned a moth, dark or light, into a bee or a bird (I.E no amount of adaptation to envirnment has ever caused a species to change into a higher form of life)
Bacteria mutation is also evidence for evolution but the problem is: They've never evolved. And if you say because it takes millions of years for ALL evolution to occur heres your problem: Mutations only happen from generation to generation and if a bacteria generation is 20 minutes and a human generation is 20 years than...well do the math. And we've been watching bacteria in micro-scopes for about 200 years and we've seen NO advancement whatsoever aside from adaptation to envirnments.

Can you see why some people just havnt bought evolution yet? Thats why I'm sick of people assuming that those who dont believe in evolution are somehow inferior or stupid. If that was the case, we wouldnt be able to even make an arguement.
As for schools and media: I've NEVER seen a blantently Creationist-supporting media...EVER I've never seen it. If you can point out some specific fine, but I personally have never seen creationist defend or even evolution argued against in schools, media, movies (Paul is the best example for the insulting of the Intelligent design movement without being connected to the plot, that was an intention insult on creationists) anywhere at all really.

Most peoples views: Why dont we just teach the truth? We dont KNOW how life got started, why is that so threatening?

 

[Freeze_L]

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.

Intelligent design is a philosophical answer to a scientific question. All it is is an explanation of evolution not a separate theory.

But yes pepole have the right to disagree. However it does not make them right because in the end of the day, regardless of what you choose to think, the world is not nearly as subjective as we would like to think.

Also the definition of a Theory (in scientific terms at least) is a hypothesis that has been tested over and over to the point that has become accepted as true because there is no reason (no evidence) against it and plenty of evidence for it.

Sorry if this came out a little bit more angry then i intended. This is a thread about misconceptions

 

[DRIIV]

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:

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.

Drug resistance bacteria, and bacteria that can eat nylon.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtpsunRYIs&feature=related

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)

Who says life came from rock colliding?

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.

Evolution is a scientific theory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14&feature=related (scientific method. Evolution being used to help with the creation of drugs seems to be used for the greater good.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Don't mind me. Just going to point out why this guy fails at (evolutionary) biology forever.

The only part of evolution that has the data to support itself is natural nelection and the resulting speciation that comes from it.

Eeeh. Yes. That is evolution. What more do you want the theory to do? Wipe your bottom and tie your shoelaces?

Basically, no amount of ash on a tree has ever turned a moth, dark or light, into a bee or a bird (I.E no amount of adaptation to envirnment has ever caused a species to change into a higher form of life)

One: that's not what the theory of evolution says.
Two: why would a moth turn into a bee or a bird?
Three: The word 'turned' implies a short amount of time. I do hope you know that evolution takes hundreds upon hundreds of generations?

Bacteria mutation is also evidence for evolution but the problem is: They've never evolved. And if you say because it takes millions of years for ALL evolution to occur heres your problem: Mutations only happen from generation to generation and if a bacteria generation is 20 minutes and a human generation is 20 years than...well do the math. And we've been watching bacteria in micro-scopes for about 200 years and we've seen NO advancement whatsoever aside from adaptation to envirnments.

Wow... So what you're saying is: I have never seen bacteria suddenly become any multicellular lifeform. According to the evolutionary timeline it took about 800 million years from the first prokaryotic lifeforms to cyanobactiera (ie: bacteria capable of photosynthesis). To get to the point of multicellular organisms took about a billion years from that point.

So no, you won't see these bacteria grow legs and walk out of the lab in 200 years. Just the idea of it is laughable, and shows that you know very little of the subject.


Apart from that: only under the best of circumstances can these bacteria have generation times of 20 minutes. In nature it takes about thrice that time.

Can you see why some people just havnt bought evolution yet? Thats why I'm sick of people assuming that those who dont believe in evolution are somehow inferior or stupid. If that was the case, we wouldnt be able to even make an arguement.

And you can't. It's not that I believe that these people are inferior or stupid (though it's likely), but their believes are. And I treat them with very little respect because they try to force their ideas onto the minds of children.

And what creationists, or rather: intelligent designees (?), because I have no quarrel with creationists in general, are doing is not having a discussion. Their tactics are trying to undermine the theory of evolution using false arguments, made up facts and name-calling.

As for schools and media: I've NEVER seen a blantently Creationist-supporting media...EVER I've never seen it. If you can point out some specific fine, but I personally have never seen creationist defend or even evolution argued against in schools, media, movies (Paul is the best example for the insulting of the Intelligent design movement without being connected to the plot, that was an intention insult on creationists) anywhere at all really.

Not much to say on this. I don't live in the USA.

Most peoples views: Why dont we just teach the truth? We dont KNOW how life got started, why is that so threatening?

.... Derp....

Evolution says nothing on how life started. Now, I'd like you to just read the wikipedia article on evolution. It's incomplete and wrong in some places, but it has the gist of it. Which you do not.

 

[Warforger]

There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

Yes there is. Evolution has mountains upon mountains of evidence to back it up; Creationism does not have any.

Denying Evolution is real is like denying the Romans are real.

 

[Asita]

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.

Wrong. It's true that science can't prove anything, at least not in the same sense used in mathematics, as everything is subjective to new data. However, the falsifiability of a given suject is a key criteria for its scientific status, making the 'nothing can be disproved' part of your statement false in anything other than a semantic sense that relies on the impossibility of proving a negative instead of the more utlitarian meaning of the data not lining up with it.

 

[Asita]

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

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 reminders )
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'm aware of Evolution's status. What I listed (as I thought I explained later in the post, but I guess not sufficiently) were hypothetical models that would falsify the theory as we know it today. A static fossil record (which again: We're pretty sure we lack) would throw virtually all data out the window by heavily suggesting that life existed in its present form for millenia. True chimeras would cancel out much of genetics and indicate either 'true' species (by virtue of mishmashes like the Chimera itself having traits like the head of a goat...another head of a lion, a snake tail (alternatively, a tail that is a snake)), or damaging the conclusions about breedable organisms (in the case of mermaids, allowing hybridization at the level of Phyla). And a mechanism that prevented mutations past a certain point in a given population would ostensibly prohibit speciation thus limiting evolution's capacity to explain the existence of life. Now, as I stated priorly, we can say with ever greater certainty that these things don't exist outside of hypothetical examples, but they act as conditions that make evolution falsifiable, which is itself a criteria for scientific status.

 

[weker]

I'm aware of Evolution's status. What I listed (as I thought I explained later in the post, but I guess not sufficiently) were hypothetical models that would falsify the theory as we know it today. A static fossil record (which again: We're pretty sure we lack) would throw virtually all data out the window by heavily suggesting that life existed in its present form for millenia. True chimeras would cancel out much of genetics and indicate either 'true' species (by virtue of mishmashes like the Chimera itself having traits like the head of a goat...another head of a lion, a snake tail (alternatively, a tail that is a snake)), or damaging the conclusions about breedable organisms (in the case of mermaids, allowing hybridization at the level of Phyla). And a mechanism that prevented mutations past a certain point in a given population would ostensibly prohibit speciation thus limiting evolution's capacity to explain the existence of life. Now, as I stated priorly, we can say with ever greater certainty that these things don't exist outside of hypothetical examples, but they act as conditions that make evolution falsifiable, which is itself a criteria for scientific status.

As I said I understood this was hypothetical, however even if it was the case, science would still keep its current stance but just investigate it and class them as outlines.

 

[Minimizer110000]

That's right, around 50% of the population of the United States does not believe in evolution, and that is sad.

Actually, it's more like 35%, Richard Dawkins said so recently when he was evaluating the Republican Presidential candidiates. It's even grimmer than it seems. I agree with your argument and it's getting worse in places like Texas where they are actually teaching misinformation to children. I got this all from Reddit lol.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Anyone with a degree in obviousology could tell you that Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT the same thing. Creationism is a TYPE of Intelligent Design, but so is believing that aliens landed on Earth and seeded it to manipulate it's evolution. Intelligent Design just took the patterns already seen in evolution and extrapolated that they were guided in some fashion. It's as valid a hypothesis that evolution was. I love how atheist praise Darwin for sticking to his guns with a new and revolutionary idea, but reject all other new and revolutionary ideas for no reason. There is a word for that: hypocrisy.

Doubt it evolution is due to varying factors. Lack of explaining it properly and getting mad when asked to do so is one of them. Yeah, way to make us put trust in your theory. Who wouldn't believe the angry jerk? Oh yeah, no one!

No they didn't and no it isn't. Again, see Kitzmiller v. Dover. See also the infamous 'Wedge Document'. Intelligent Design is quite literally a repackaging of the core tennets of Creationism to make them seem not to violate the establishment clause, designed by creationists for creationists. See wiki for a brief introduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

Thank you for showing what a post responding to only the first sentence of mine would look like. What's that? You were responding to my whole post? Well, that cannot be the case as you completely missed the point and didn't even read the source you sited.

At first glance, the wiki does seem to indicate that ID is Creationism, but the methods are completely different. Intelligent Design came form natural observation of the universe and testing. You know, SCIENTIFIC METHOD! Thus, it is science, though only in the hypothesis phase. Creationism took elements from the Bible and mixed in some science. The ID wiki brings up the Bible once, to clarify that advocates of the theory keep the Bible out of it. Creationism=pseudoscience, Intelligent Design=scientific hypothesis

Atheist Evolutionist are just pretentiously annoying asshats, as far as I've seen. This comes from actually seeing how they respond to even the simplest question about evolution, so as in "Flock of Dodos" and "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". FYI: "Flock of Dodos" was hosted by an evolutionist. Wow.

How is it science? What research has been done on the subject? What peer reviewed journals have had entries on it? What major scientific establishments have acknowledged it as a science? It is just one big argument from ignorance. It isn't science.
Michael Behe, the leading scientist behind it, has acknowledged that you would have to completely redefine the definition of "science" for ID to even try to qualify.

 

[Nocola]

I just can't hold back anymore...

I find your lack of faith disturbing...

I'M SORRY SOMEONE HAD TO SAY IT. SO SO SORRY.

 

[gertmenkel]

@The-Epicly-Named-Man
You mean kids in the US aren't taught Evolutionism in some schools?
How do they teach biology?

 

[velcrokidneyz]

Everything I know about evolution I learned from this game:

This is how mammals superseded the reptiles!

Educational stuff

such a good game!

 

[fragmaster09]

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.

'intelligent design' doesn't explain the microbes on mars, or any of the UNintelligent designs in this world... if i were religious i would be reluctant to believe the 'we were made as us' part, because we have flaws ourself, and if we were created in the image of a perfect being, then we ought to be perfect beings, just less powerful, but we are not perfect, so we can't have been made in the image of a perfect being, and it can't be a ;mistake' on the part of this perfect being, because if you are perfect then you can't make mistakes, as that is one of the human imperfections

 

[Asita]

Thank you for showing what a post responding to only the first sentence of mine would look like. What's that? You were responding to my whole post? Well, that cannot be the case as you completely missed the point and didn't even read the source you sited.

At first glance, the wiki does seem to indicate that ID is Creationism, but the methods are completely different. Intelligent Design came form natural observation of the universe and testing. You know, SCIENTIFIC METHOD! Thus, it is science, though only in the hypothesis phase. Creationism took elements from the Bible and mixed in some science. The ID wiki brings up the Bible once, to clarify that advocates of the theory keep the Bible out of it. Creationism=pseudoscience, Intelligent Design=scientific hypothesis

Atheist Evolutionist are just pretentiously annoying asshats, as far as I've seen. This comes from actually seeing how they respond to even the simplest question about evolution, so as in "Flock of Dodos" and "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". FYI: "Flock of Dodos" was hosted by an evolutionist. Wow.

Well to respond in kind, thank you for showing what someone pretending to have read the source provided would look like. Did you perhaps miss the little detail of Kizmiller v. Dover? You know, where the term was first really examined and was overwhelmingly demonstrated to be the same concepts used in Creationism presented in a more PC form? Did you also miss the part where the flagship book for the concept was quite literally first made as a creationist textbook and the bulk of the changes made to it were changing most instances of 'creationism' to 'intelligent design', 'creationist' to 'design proponent' and one particularly damning error which had the end result being 'cdesign proponentists'? Perhaps you also missed the Wedge Document saying in no uncertain terms that the entire purpose of the Intelligent Design movement was to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"?

Incidentally, you might want to take a look at a little ditty called Expelled exposed. Expelled was a very intellectually dishonest film which rehashed some of the more outlandish logical fallacies to ever disgrace the movement.

 

[A LargePlatypus]

I learned that tapping B stops evolution,some creatures only evolve when given rocks,and others only evolve when given to someone else. Which is difficult if none of your friends have Gameboys.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

This thread needs some clarifications. First Intelligent Design isn't just Creationism.

Creationism falls mostly in to two subsets. God created humanity as it is today, and God created life and made the rules of evolution. Neither is testable because they both require leaps of faith. This does not however make creationism invalid because it comes down to personal faith. If you insult someone for personal faith you're just as much of an idiot as you claim they are.

Second Intelligent Design covers subjects like the Hypothesis of Extraterrestrial design of humans. In such cases as a highly evolved race that lived on earth perhaps millions of years ago, or non earth originated animal life created us. Both cases are untestable unless we find significant fossil, or archeological proof, or if we encounter such species. If we do find a alien race that claims to have built us they'd better have proof of such.

Third is that Darwin did not build the theory of evolution, his contribution was natural selection which is discredited. Evolution can not be proven because we have never witnessed it actually happening. On top of that there are so many holes in the fossil record that as much as 99% of life that ever lived on earth, left no trace on the earth. That is why there are "missing links."

None of these hypotheses, theories, or faiths are yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There just isn't enough solid fact to prove any of these. So it is indeed up to each person's individual view. Personally for me I believe that it's most likely that an extraterrestrial race designed us for what ever purpose they had. Be it leaving their own imprint across the galaxy, making reliably intelligent workers, or simply just being able to say they did it. But it can't be proven true of false now, maybe in the future it can, but now it's still just a thought. As are Creationism and Evolution. For all we know they could all be somewhat correct.

 

[Okamipsychonaut]

We are a type 1 civilization....meaning we have a long way to go before everyone is easy going about the complexity behind our coming into being on this mammal train. Apparently our only type 2 feature is Rock n Roll culture..which rock n rollers understand among each other...a global culture.

I go mushroom hunting in the Autumn(yes, in the Autumn, heh), and I find these Pacific golden Chanterelles, which is like a sturgeon, or a cockroach..or another organism that has stayed with an unchanging form for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time( didn't know the specific millions or billions for those fungus, fish and insects)

As for Social Darwinism and it's potential ugly face. In our brave new future...there are all sorts of struggles sure to come, but it all get's put on it's face when you have physically beautiful idiots and physically repellent genius, and of course vice versa.

It also be seen that seeing our own origins outside the box is impossible maybe...because humans have put their population centers in the lie of volcanoes, on land scoured flat by hurricanes, and right on fault lines....in the relatively quiet times before civilization smashing events....a blink in time for a mountain....a thousand generations of people. This shows that we cannot see our precise place in the scheme of "thing" "s"

I recommend the wild speculation about evolution by the science fiction/philosophy writer Colin Wilson.....for the more adventurous and less stuffy exploring minds.