The misinterpretation of evolution

[oktalist]

Never said my answer was more valid.

Simply by believing your answer you are implying that you think it is more valid than competing answers.

 

[Olrod]

Name one belief system that ISN'T "unprovable".

 

[samonix]

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.

Creationism has absolutely no basis in fact, and should not be taught as such. It is the view of a religion, and thus should not be taught to kids as a scientific theory, but as a part of a religious history class, should they choose to take one.

Creationism is not scientific theory, nor can I imagine anywhere that it is taught as such. Evolution is scientific theory because there is no proof for it, so saying one is right and one is wrong just makes you equally as ignorant.

Evolution has some evidence and Creationism does too, both have huge holes in them to prevent either one being proven. For example, Humans were either created by God or evolved from some unknown 'missing link'. Neither are exactly viable.

 

[oktalist]

Evolution, as far as I understand it, does not take environment into account as such.

It is simply random mutations some of which happen to be more suited to that environment.

Epic contradiction.

By saying the animals adapts to it's environment is saying that it is driving it's own evolution with an intelligent design.

You misunderstand the word "adapt". It simply means "to make fit". It does not necessarily imply that individual creatures are the ones doing the adaptation. When we say the hummingbird's beak has adapted to extract nectar from flowers, we just mean that over time, birds with longer beaks have been the ones better able to survive, and so over thousands or millions of years the average length of the beak in the hummingbird species has grown, until it has reached a certain point where it no longer holds any advantage to keep on extending it. Evolution is a kind of adaptation that happens due to natural selection. Adaptation does not imply conscious decision-making, and it does not imply that it happens within the lifespan of one individual.

 

[oktalist]

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.

The idea that evolution has been proven...IS a misconception about evolution.

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

The theory of gravity cannot be proven, just like the theory of evolution cannot be proven, just like no scientific theory can ever be 100% conclusively proven. People think (not know for certain) that gravity is correct, based on what they've 'done' 'seen' and 'heard'. Every falling object we have ever measured has fallen in a way which is consistent with the theory of gravity, but if tomorrow an object fell differently, gravity would be disproven and we'd have to look for a new theory. Similarly, every fossil and extant organism we have ever seen has been consistent with the theory of evolution, but if tomorrow we found a fossil that didn't fit the theory, then it would be disproven and we'd have to find a new theory. That is how science works, nothing is ever 100% conclusively proven. This seems to confuse religious people, who are used to having imagined certainty.

The existence of the Roman Empire cannot be proven because no-one has ever witnessed it. All we have are these bits of old pottery and coins and stuff that we dug out of the ground, that could be anything. Oh no wait, the Romans are mentioned in the Bible, so that proves they existed.

no one has ever witnessed a creature evolve.

If it ever DID take place, it isnt happening now

Bacteria mutation is also evidence for evolution but the problem is: They've never evolved.

We have witnessed evolution, in bacteria and in moths and elsewhere.

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)

THAT IS NOT EVOLUTION!

If you're under the impression that evolution means a creature changing from one form to another within its own lifetime then I have to try very hard not to call you a very disrespectful word. Because that would mean you are talking shit about something you know NOTHING about. Literally, NOTHING. I might as well say that Christianity is wrong because Christians believe Jesus invented the television, which we know was actually invented by John Logie Baird in 1926.

I can't believe I have to explain this shit.

EDIT:
Also "higher form of life" is another of your own inventions, having nothing to do with evolution.

The odds of it happening (or happened) are VERY VERY slim. Its very unlikely and not many evolutionists will admit that.

Not at all. Actually you would have a harder time trying to prove that natural selection doesn't happen. Because it's a tautology: things which are better at reproducing, reproduce more. How can a tautology be unlikely?

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.

If you think that extant species and the fossil record are not concrete evidence for evolution then you have a bigger problem than I can help you with.

Can you see why some people just havnt bought evolution yet?

I can only conclude that they have a form of mental illness.

 

[oktalist]

Who says that creationsim completely excludes evolution?

Creationists? Just a guess.

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

You win this thread and all subsequent threads on this subject, for ever.

 

[lord.jeff]

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.

Creationism has absolutely no basis in fact, and should not be taught as such. It is the view of a religion, and thus should not be taught to kids as a scientific theory, but as a part of a religious history class, should they choose to take one.

Creationism is not scientific theory, nor can I imagine anywhere that it is taught as such. Evolution is scientific theory because there is no proof for it, so saying one is right and one is wrong just makes you equally as ignorant.

Evolution has some evidence and Creationism does too, both have huge holes in them to prevent either one being proven. For example, Humans were either created by God or evolved from some unknown 'missing link'. Neither are exactly viable.

Evolution is proven, look at any shorter life term creatures, such as bugs or even better bacteria and viruses, there's a reason sort medicines don't work anymore and that reason is evolution, plus there are fossils that show signs of change over time. Evolution isn't just we came from monkeys that's one theory within evolution, just because that isn't proven doesn't mean the rest is false.

 

[reiem531]

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.

Yes, I totally agree. And while we're at it, let's teach both side of the "Geocentric vs. Heliocentric" debate! Lets kids decide for themselves whether the universe orbits the Earth or Earth orbits the sun!

And what about the Flat Earth vs. Spherical Earth debate? Yeah, let kids decide for themselves on that one too!

Oh, and how could I forget the debate of Dalton's Billiard Ball model of the atom vs. Schrodinger's Quantum Mechanical model! Kids should certainly be able to decide which model of the atom is more correct.

 

[sinterklaas]

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.

'Believing' in evolution is not a choice. Evolution is simply a fact, someone not 'believing' in it makes him/her an idiot.

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.

This (not that I personally believe it though). Why can't Creationists just accept this as a good alternative that doesn't push the role of God down the drain?

Also, obligatory SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS NOT A 'NORMAL' THEORY. IT IS A MODEL OF REALITY THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN BY CAREFUL OBSERVATIONS, NUMEROUS DATA AND LOTS OF EXPERIMENTS.

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY DOES NOT MEAN IT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN, FOR GOD'S SAKE.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

Evolution is scientific theory because there is no proof for it.

*Sigh*

Allow me to quote one of my earlier post:

"Just a theory" again. -groan-

I know, it makes me cringe every time.

From Wikipedia:

In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Pedagogical_definition

It's likely that someone has posted this before, but I'm still putting it here so it has more exposure.

Also, like many people said before me, "Genesis of Life" does not equal to "Evolution". They are two separate things. One explains how life was created, the other explains the diversity of life on Earth.

 

[zakkro]

Which version of Evolution is the right one?

Which version of Creationism is the right one?

Think about those two questions, and consider them both equally. Eventually you may come to a realisation.

There are multiple "versions" of evolution?

Yes the theory of evolution has for lack of a better word evolved over time as we learn more about it.

Well, yes, I gathered that. Aside from the Gradualism vs PE that the other poster pointed out, I don't think there are very many camps regarding evolutionary theory as a whole. At least, not compared to all the creation stories out there.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Alleged_Alec: "why this guy fails at (evolutionary) biology forever" - Ignoring the obvious childishness in that statement.

One thing first: when quoting, it's rather handy to actually use the quote button. I actually know to respond then.

And yes, it was rather childish. It's just that I get very sick of this 'debate'.

"One: that's not what the theory of evolution says" - So the theory of evolution does NOT say that envirnmental differences lead to adaptation? Yes it does. Its part of survival, its what allows for more mutations and biological changes is what drives evolution in the first place.

Evolution says very little about species becoming a more complex organism. Simple can be just as good.

"Two: why would a moth turn into a bee or a bird?" - I mean to imply any more complex organism than a moth. obviously I didnt mean literally a bee or a bird, just a higher form of life.

But complex isn't the same as having a better (inclusive) fitness in the current ecosystem.

"Three: The word 'turned' implies a short amount of time." -Again, I didnt think anyone would take hat literally. I mean to say that no envirnmental changes which has forced organisms to adapt have ever caused real evolution, evolving into a higher form of life.

I've seen very stupid quotes in this sort of discussions. I tend to take stuff literally because often times, people do mean it literally.

"According to the evolutionary timeline it took about 800 million years from the first prokaryotic lifeforms to cyanobactiera" - This sort of proves my point that evolution HAS NOT been observed yet.

Which, as was my point, is a rubbish argument. We haven't observed the entire life cycle of a star, but that doesn't make theories and hypotheses about them any less valid.

But my main point is that we havnt even seen ANY changes in bacteria which would suggest that it is evolving over the last 200 years.

But we have. We've seen bacteria 'develop' new mechanisms to defend themselves against antibiotics, for example and there are many more of these examples.

You're saying that there are no visible signs of evolution besides envirnmental adaptation? If so, than it furthers my point what we have no observed evolution.

What kind of visible signs would you like to see?

"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." - Yes it would be quie laughable, assuming thats what I said, which I didnt...like AT ALL. I'd enjoy it if you read my arguements and not filled in spaces with your own commentry to try and insult my points if you would. I never suggested that, and there is no way from reading what I posted would you get that assumption.

I was exaggerating, but I do hope you get my point. It's somewhat silly to expect them to suddenly for colonies or even become multicellular organisms when there is no selection pressure for them to do so.

"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." - Good, than we should be seeing evolution in less time shouldnt we? Again, this kind of furthers my point.

With that I meant a generation time of 20 minutes in the lab and 60 in a more usual environment.

"And you can't. It's not that I believe that these people are inferior or stupid (though it's likely)" - Thought its likely, I apperciate that. Doesnt that sort of prove that you DO believe that your intellectual opponents are inferior? Its kind of a slap-dash way of hiding your thoughts about the issue isnt it?

Many of the people who do not accept evolution are doing so for a simple reason: they fail to educate themselves on the subject. When these people then start debating a subject they know nothing about, yes, they are rather stupid.

"And I treat them with very little respect because they try to force their ideas onto the minds of children." - I've never understood this arguement. Politics, religion, ethnic background is RARELY FORCED upon children. In fact, forcig ideas is usually a good way to make sure that a child will NOT belive those ideas. This arguement has never held much water for me and to me is a bit like the old "ITS FOR THE CHILDREN" emotional rhetoric, which is all that really is, emotional rhetoric.

Then what would you name tactics like 'teach the controversy', when there is none. And yes, those things are forced upon children, though 'forced' maybe a quite strong word to use. Children take over their parents' believes and ideologies.

"Their tactics are trying to undermine the theory of evolution using false arguments, made up facts and name-calling" -The first two I can understand, but I've seen more of the second by evolutionists...this discussion is a good example.

I think you mean name-calling there? I admit that that would be true. Made-up facts? Not so much.

Also, I've rarely seen the first two from ID advocates or Creationists.

I'd like you to read the 'wedge documents'. It shows the intellectual dishonesty in the ID movement.

Also, undermining the opponents arguement is usually half the battle in a debate.

Except when it's done through fallacious arguments, intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation or even made up facts.

"Not much to say on this. I don't live in the USA" - I live in the USA and my family is Mexico, I've rarely seen ID or Creationism presented in positive ways, especially in schools.

Because, imho, they shouldn't be. They are a blight upon this planet, hoping to distort the public's image.

".... Derp...." - Indeed. "Evolution says nothing on how life started" - Naturalistic explaination is what I was refering to. Evolution is merely the end chapter of how life begain, How life grew.

Which has nothing to do with evolution, and therefore has no place in this debate.


EDIT: What I'm also noticing is how you first say that adapting to your environment is indeed evolution, but later point out that we have never seen something evolve. You even brought up those moths yourself.


EDIT2:

Evolution is scientific theory because there is no proof for it, so saying one is right and one is wrong just makes you equally as ignorant.

Evolution is a scientific theory because there is (quite a lot of) evidence for it. If there wasn't, it would be a hypothesis. Which is what you mean when you say theory.

Evolution has some evidence and Creationism does too, both have huge holes in them to prevent either one being proven. For example, Humans were either created by God or evolved from some unknown 'missing link'. Neither are exactly viable.

Point me to a big hole in evolution, if you will. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find more than two or three. There are indeed some minor points which are not yet adequately explained, but that's science: it changes its theories to make them more accurate.

 

[Denamic]

To all who argue about 'complexity' one way or another, I'd just like to mention something.
Humans have fewer genes than rice.
Let that sink in for a moment.

 

[tikalal]

Wall of badly formatted text. Did not read OP.

 

[bootz]

I can't believe anyone has mentioned this, A letter Proposing teaching ID In schools.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

FSM forever

 

[Polite Sage]

Humans themselves are the proof of evolution

1. Wisdom tooth (teeth that just gets in the way now, left from the time our brains were smaller and we had more teeth) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_tooth
2. Blind gut / Cecum (now useless to man, believed to being remains from the time humans were herbivores) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecum
3. Tailbone / Coccyx (remains from the time humans still had tails) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

 

[darkstarangel]

Im studying molecular biology at uni & even though we're taught evolution I still dont believe it is a valid explanation. Even the lecturers hold it at an objective stance & will confess whats just a guess & which textbook theories can easily be proven wrong with any new evidence discovered.

The sad thing is, it doesnt get enough criticism & the evidence is superficial at best. It seems infallible because all your information comes from the media which bombs the public with bias & selective data. Rather than trying to devise an explanation as to how a biological component 'evolved' alot of textbooks & even research articles & reports will just say it evolved as an exemption from explaining how, & if you learn how alot of vital biochemical pathways necessary for living are so irreducibly complex you will see why they avoid trying to give an explanation.

But I think your issue is that alot of people are choosing to disbelieve it not based on scientific detail but by choice. However considering that the media isnt exactly something to be trusted to begin with you cant really blame people for doubting it. Whats really sad is that people passionately defend evolution with such ferocity yet dont even understand the sciences that the theory is involved with. Ironically the latest defence by the theorys proponents is that people dont understand how the mechanisms for evolution work, being the reason they reject.

 

[Pojo-san]

There are a few misinterpretations about evolution that make me cringe sometimes when people get it wrong. First one, is that people think that evolution means that we came from monkeys. Homo-sapiens did not evolve from apes. Apes, humans, neanderthals, and many members of the primate family evolved from the same ancestors.

Second, Darwin did not come up with the theory of evolution in the sense most people think. He come up with the ideas of natural selection and descent through modification. The idea of evolution that we know today came after Darwin, but the theory of evolution did evolve from his theories. Pun not intended. I'm not arguing that he didn't play a role in developing the theory, but he did not have a direct role. Side note: Darwin was a devout catholic when he wrote "The Origin of Species."

As for the argument with Creationism and Evolution, I'll just leave this here: "Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --Albert Einstein

 

[darkstarangel]

In science there is no proof only evidence, which is open to interpretation & criticism.

Wisdom teeth are mature teeth. They only pose a problem when peoples jaws dont fully develope, a trait happening in various other parts of the body & no doubt due to the many synthetic chemicals we expose ourselves to. (Highly recomend avoid drinking from disposable plastic bottles)

The caecum along with the appendix, now discovered to store good bacteria to replenish in the colon after diarrhea, (& why it produces antibodies) Squeezes faeces up the large intestine. In ruminent mammals its larger to store more cellulose for the bacteria to break down.

And the coccyx is an anchor point for alot of the bodys skeletal muscles. Bruise it & you dont walk or sit for a week or two. Lying down is also just as painful.

Try google scholar instead of wikipedia next time.

 

[kouriichi]

Never said my answer was more valid.

Simply by believing your answer you are implying that you think it is more valid than competing answers.

No. I dont believe its more valid.
I believe its less fantastic. xD

An answer doesnt have to be more valid for you to believe it.

"I believe George Washington enjoyed heavy metal and and dancing on a pair of sandwiches in china."

"Thats impossible! Because Napoleon ate liverwurst, which farting his way across Canada, in purple spandex."

Which is the more valid opinion?
Neither. They are both unproven, fantastical, and HIGHLY unlikely. Just because its a belief, doesn't mean i view it as the more valid one. Its just the option i personally prefer.