The misinterpretation of evolution

[Asita]

You know, in retrospect I'm surprised that TalkOrigins good old Index to Creationist Claims hasn't popped up yet. That's about as comprehensive a list of misconcpetions about evolution (and the rebuttals to them) as you get.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Third is that Darwin did not build the theory of evolution, his contribution was natural selection which is discredited.

Hold the fucking phone. I'll ignore the rest of your post. This, however, needs addressing. Immediately.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

SNIP

Unfortunately as looking it up goes it gets ambiguous as all hell as far as definitions go. But if you know your history of biology, Darwin's theory was indeed natural selection. But natural selection spits in the face of genetic diversity which is proven. It also doesn't even come close to explaining all the junk throw back genetic data in modern animal life. For example what the hell is the human appendix for? Even more confusing how did land based reptiles evolve in to avian life? Either way it's usually said that Darwinism/Natural Selection has been surpassed by other studies in to evolution. Though it's at large rejected in the scientific community, there are many who believe it a mechanic of evolution.

 

[Gabriel Dragulia]

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.

See, you I like. I'm an Atheist myself, but I don't mind you being Christian, believing what you think is 'the right explanation' (just to put it simply, and I don't mean this in a bad way, but just to make this easy, and not a 3 paragraph explanation about all this.). The best part here I think is that you don't mind what others think.

aside from that... I don't know. Evolution is just quite a difficult thing to grasp. It happens over the course of so long, that you will hardly notice anything of it. The only thing you can possibly see happening in your lifetime is social evolution... but that's a completely different story.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

SNIP

Unfortunately as looking it up goes it gets ambiguous as all hell as far as definitions go. But if you know your history of biology, Darwin's theory was indeed natural selection. But natural selection spits in the face of genetic diversity which is proven. It also doesn't even come close to explaining all the junk throw back genetic data in modern animal life. For example what the hell is the human appendix for? Even more confusing how did land based reptiles evolve in to avian life? Either way it's usually said that Darwinism/Natural Selection has been surpassed by other studies in to evolution. Though it's at large rejected in the scientific community, there are many who believe it a mechanic of evolution.

Again, I'm going to need a source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Wikipedia disagrees.

 

[DarkChoclate]

The way I go about it is I'm a Christian and there are a lot of things about my religion that make legitimate sense, but others that don't. So when I see things like fossils, i wont throw away the idea of evolution because hell, its proof. But I still believe in my religion, so my theory is just it doesn't make sense and I'm cool with that. No one actually knows how the beginning of humanity began and the truth of it may very well be that no one will. So arguing about it isn't going to make a difference because I think if humans ever do find the answer, it probably will not make sense, and possibly come off as stupid which could lead to it being denied. Seeing as that is not yet the case, everyone's opinion is literally a guess and just depends on a person's respective belief. So I really don't care about each persons ignorance because it might as well make as much sense as my own belief, and to each man his own.

Edit: With that said, I find knowledge and discussion to be enlightening so while arguing and throwing a fit may be pointless, discussing it still has its value.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Again, I'm going to need a source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Wikipedia disagrees.

Wikipedia isn't a scientific source, and is considered generally unreliable as a source for information because of how many people can, and do edit it. You want a source, visit the nearest university, visit the library and Biology department there. I'm no scientist, scholar, professor, or expert on the subject. But this is what I learned in Biology class. Darwin came up with the theory of Natural Selection, and he was pretty close, but missed the target.

 

[oktalist]

Another major misintepretation of evolution is that it is a random process, which it is not at all.

Sorry for the quotefest, but there's lots to reply to and I don't want to flood the thread with one post for each reply.

I do not think everyone should be forced to believe in evolution, if people don't want to, why make them?

No-one is forced to believe anything they don't want to. The question is what should children be taught in science class. Answer: science!

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.

I'll let creationism be taught in science class just as soon as you start teaching evolution in church.

Individuals do not evolve, the group does.

Actually it is only genes that are selected for and against, and the perceived evolution of individuals and groups stems from that. Of course selection as we know it couldn't happen without a group, but that is not the same as saying it is groups that evolve.

I'd say to get a definition from a biology teacher or find a reputable website to find the definition. Any definition I would give would be either too complex (and I honestly lack the patience) or so simplistic it would be factually incorrect.

Natural selection says "things which are better at reproducing will reproduce more." So it's nothing more than a tautology; it is true by definition. I do not understand how anyone could disagree with it. Furthermore, "traits are passed down hereditarily." The case for that assertion is fairly strong (kids look like their parents, and with DNA we can literally observe how this works). That's all it is. And evolution, then, is the theory that the living things we see in the world today have arrived at their present state by natural selection.

It is the simplest way of explaining why life looks the way it does, and the fossil record bears it out, and we can still see natural selection in action today, making species look different from the way they did fifty or a hundred years ago.

its worth noting that the ignorance surrounding science subjects like this and general anti-intellectualism is seriously harming Americas economic strength.

This.

As far as I know Europe has similar religious hindrances, though Catholic instead of Protestant based.

Pretty sure we do not teach intelligent design in science class.

if it can't be tested or observed, it isn't even a hypothesis. Maybe 'assertion' or 'idea' is closer to the mark.

Or 'guess'. Or 'wish'.

I think some problems stem from calling evolution a theory. To people who don't understand it, it gives the impression that there's still a good chance it could be wrong.

And the religious are predisposed to understand it that way as they are so used to making wild guesses about the nature of the universe.

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

Imagine yourself as a puddle of water in a depression in the ground. You are saying "how unlikely it is that this depression in the ground is just the right shape for me." The Earth suits us very well because it is where we developed. If we happened to develop on another planet, then that planet would suit us just as well.

What are the chances we, HUMANS sit here to day?

Your argument that the world as we see it is so unlikely that it can only have been created by God, can just as easily apply to God himself. What are the chances that God, an infinitely fantastical entity, sits here today? Probability doesn't work as an argument in either case.

I think God guided evolution

Looks like you're so close to accepting the laws of nature and evolution but are too scared to let go of a god to make the whole thing explainable to yourself.

Like the man who thinks the images on his TV screen are created by fairies, until he has it all explained to him, radio signals, image encoding, modulation, liquid crystal displays. Then he says OK, I understand it all now, but surely there are still one or two fairies in there somewhere.

The word Evolution implies something gets better.

No, the word evolve simply means for one thing to develop from another, through some process. It comes from the Latin evolvere, meaning to unfold from. It is only through the misunderstanding that evolution is a process of improvement that evolve has recently come to imply improvement.

 

[aei_haruko]

actually, I agree with this, it seems like people seem to think " well it's just monkeys being humans" while technically true, it is a huge step in the wrong direction. evolution is just that nature rewards those who reproduce the most and who pass on their traits to the next generation

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Again, I'm going to need a source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Wikipedia disagrees.

Wikipedia isn't a scientific source, and is considered generally unreliable as a source for information because of how many people can, and do edit it. You want a source, visit the nearest university, visit the library and Biology department there. I'm no scientist, scholar, professor, or expert on the subject. But this is what I learned in Biology class. Darwin came up with the theory of Natural Selection, and he was pretty close, but missed the target.

So you are just going to completely disregard it? And you still haven't provided ONE source to back up your claim. What are you playing at?

 

[nolongerhere]

Again, I'm going to need a source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Wikipedia disagrees.

Wikipedia isn't a scientific source, and is considered generally unreliable as a source for information because of how many people can, and do edit it. You want a source, visit the nearest university, visit the library and Biology department there. I'm no scientist, scholar, professor, or expert on the subject. But this is what I learned in Biology class. Darwin came up with the theory of Natural Selection, and he was pretty close, but missed the target.

The biology department of any university of repute would tell you that natural selection is considered a key mechanism of evolution. It's not the same thing that Darwin came up with as Darwin had little or no knowledge of Mendelian inheritance, but it's still called natural selection. I don't know what you were taught, but if you were taught that the theory if natural selection has been discredited, then you've been taught poorly.

 

[CarlMin]

To me, evolution is about as interesting and controversial as microbiology. So I don't see why we need to have a tread about it every other week. Just saying.

 

[KoalaKid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oh by the way gravity doesn't exist.

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

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

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

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

You know, stupid physicists do exist.

You obviously know more about physics than he does right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're just embarrassing yourself now.

How? I simply pointed out the contradictory nature of your statement. You can continue to insult me if that's all your able to do, but you cannot make me feel ashamed or stupid.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Here's my response: Why do you care?
People are ignorant, they always have been. Why does it bother you that people don't believe in evolution. People don't believe in lots of scientific theory. Science is not about making everyone believe the same thing its about trying to understand the world and how it works. If someone doesn't believe in a theory then, oh well. Hell not believing in a theory is where many of our modern theories come from. One crazy guy says "no, that doesn't seem right" and then proves some cockamamie idea about plate tectonics or the sun or set theory. I'm not saying that all ignorant people have a good reason but you have to respect their choice and decision. You can try and talk it out and prove that your idea is valid but you can't make everyone believe in what you believe in.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

So you are just going to completely disregard it? And you still haven't provided ONE source to back up your claim. What are you playing at?

I'm actually trying to stay neutral here because I'm not an authority on the subject. But to put it in perspective: Evolution is a family of competing theories not all of which are accepted. Which means evolution is neither a single theory, nor concrete scientific fact. I'm just stating some conjecture that is floating in my own mind. I'm not prepared to disregard anything completely, I'm just stating arguments. Also I categorically have no responsibility to prove anything, because I'm no PhD of evolution. I stated what I learned 12 years ago in biology, if I'm wrong, the statement is fair game for nitpicking.

Coming on here zealously argue for scientific theory or religious faith is an exercise in futility. Because this is a gaming magazine forum, and not a scientific college.

 

[FuzzyRaccoon]

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

Because you'd have to find a secular way of explaining creationism. As laughable as it is, there IS supposed to be separation of church and state. I would have no problem with being taught creationism if they did no allude to any deity in particular. That being said, it would be a very short lecture, in order to not cross such lines, and evolution would be explained more. So people would still mutter and whine about that.

 

[Torrasque]

Its probably just an American thing, because I don't see the problem you're outlining, here in Canada. Even the religious people that I know here, believe in evolution. Its usually corrupt so it incorporates god, but thats a different thing altogether.

As for why the US has become the science-hating entity that it has, I blame the religious south; baptists, mormons, etc.
They basically demonize all science, and because they have more sway over politicians, the media, and everything, it is their cries that are heard loudest. I will never stop loling @ the irony that the founding fathers wanted America to be secular, yet its the most religion-driven country in the world, right after the Vatican.

 

[GraveeKing]

We're entitled to our views, and sure I don't understand everything about evolution - but to me, I just see lots of contradictions in the entire thing and potential for the whole system to backfire. A very basic and simple example as one of the many problems I see is this: If a species outgrows the rest, evolves to the highest state without a sentient mind, then surely it'd kill off completion, breed to such an amount that it'd devour all it's prey then starve to death. Resulting in no more ecosystem. I know it's unlikely and blah blah blah.
But really - I just see so many flaws in the whole concept of the idea. All the things that could go wrong, I just say it's all down to luck. If someone here can for once stop yelling 'you're stupid you don't believe in evolution!' and actually explain it for once then maybe less people would mid-understand?

 

[FuzzyRaccoon]

First off in a thread like this you should explain to everyone what the proper definition of evolution is if you don't want to cause any further confusion.

Personally i don't experience much trouble with people not understanding evolution. I've yet to encounter anyone who wholeheartedly believes that god created us as we are and that nothing else has played a part since the dawn of time.

I'd say it's just a religious issue and leave it at that. Plain and simple.

I don't understand why we can't all win. You can be a religious person and simply say: God CAN choose to use evolution as the vehicle for his intelligent design. It'd just shift the notion of what ID is a bit, and it wouldn't oppose it. Religion seems to be gearing up to be more in line with science anyway, it's just a matter of letting them get over their stubbornness enough to explain that a few things can be reworded a trifle and they're all still right.

[I hate religion. But I respect people's right to believe whatever the hell helps them to go on day to day.]

 

[FuzzyRaccoon]

We're entitled to our views, and sure I don't understand everything about evolution - but to me, I just see lots of contradictions in the entire thing and potential for the whole system to backfire. A very basic and simple example as one of the many problems I see is this: If a species outgrows the rest, evolves to the highest state without a sentient mind, then surely it'd kill off completion, breed to such an amount that it'd devour all it's prey then starve to death. Resulting in no more ecosystem. I know it's unlikely and blah blah blah.
But really - I just see so many flaws in the whole concept of the idea. All the things that could go wrong, I just say it's all down to luck. If someone here can for once stop yelling 'you're stupid you don't believe in evolution!' and actually explain it for once then maybe less people would mid-understand?

Uh... yeah. It isn't unlikely. It happens. It's called an Invasive Species. The cane toads are doing it right now in Australia.