12 ms·

Misconceptions about evolution

96 points by stiff 13y ago

gohrt 13y ago
Publishing a long list of misconceptions is a really bad way to destroy them. Readers will skim and just remember the headlines, all of which are false statements. Spread facts, not "myths"
- rprospero 13y ago
  It depends who the audience is. Most individuals I've known who hold these misconceptions wouldn't have bothered going to that page in the first place. So they're not the audience. I am at least part of the audience by definition. I'll admit that I started with a skim of the list of headlines. I then read in detail on the misconceptions I hadn't heard before. I'm now familiar with these misconceptions and can more clearly articulate a response when I encounter them.
- lake99 13y ago
  > Spread facts, not "myths" I think this guy [1], with his PhD thesis on the topic, would beg to differ. Also, I don't think the website's sole purpose is to destroy them (misconceptions/people?). Some of us lay people who are knowledgeable, but have learnt the wrong factoid, for one reason or another, could still benefit from it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY_o4A1wzsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY_o4A1wzsg
  - doorhammer 13y ago
    Yeah. I haven't had time to read the list (I plan on reading it later, ) but the tone from the intro didn't seem to be concerned about destroying people. I'm personally in the camp of folks that picks up information about evolution as I go, since it's not really related to anything I do in my day to day, and I appreciate a concise description of possible misconceptions.
- DanBC 13y ago
  You need the myths for SEO.
standeven 13y ago
None of the evolution deniers that I've met would have the slightest interest in reading this list, but I suppose it's useful to quickly look up counter-arguments to their claims. A similar site with a greater focus on creationist claims can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
- glhaynes 13y ago
  The vast majority of evolution deniers I've known wouldn't have the slightest interest, I agree. But, as someone who grew up totally immersed in an evolution-denying atmosphere, I would have been very interested during that time in which I was "seeking the truth." (And indeed I fondly remember from that time the talk.origins page you linked. Thanks for the nostalgia, what a great site!)
- es20641 13y ago
  As someone who believes in both an intelligent designer creating the world, and micro (but not macro) evolution, I am extremely interested in reading this. I just thought I would let you know :)
  - standeven 13y ago
    If you're genuinely interested in reading this and accepting facts that may challenge your beliefs, then I applaud you. Here's some reading to get you started: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
- prawn 13y ago
  Sadly, many would have little interest in having their perspective challenged at all.
  - toasterlovin 13y ago
    "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." -John Kenneth Galbraith
mjt0229 13y ago
I would point anyone who subscribes to any of the several current fad diets to this one: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a8 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq....
- darkchasma 13y ago
  What fad diets are you referring to?
  - prawks 13y ago
    Perhaps Paleo, but I'm not the parent.
  - mjt0229 13y ago
    Any diet that is based on an unsubstantiated claim that "humans have not evolved to digest X" where X is something that humans have been eating for thousands of years. Paleo comes to mind, but there are others. The claim made by these diets isn't structurally invalid, but often the claims are made without any investigation and are substantiated by anecdotal evidence that people feel better when eliminating X from their diet. That's fine, but that's not the same thing as being incompatible from an evolutionary standpoint.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  In particular the milk adaptation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose
anywherenotes 13y ago
Quite interesting. It corrects well the statement "Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population." to: Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b6 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.... I think that's a very important clarification, because we may look around and see very diverse population with very diverse handicaps - from mental to physical, and question how it could be that "survival of the fittest" let all this happen. Information is also organized really well - short paragraphs, easy to consume, with links to more details in some sections. Target audience is probably someone who wants a few questions answered, but not a creationist or a biology scientist.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  > Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate Would it make sense to turn it around and say "Natural selection is about unfit individuals in a population dying off"
  - liber8 13y ago
    The most accurate way to phrase it would be to say that "natural selection is about less fit individuals having a decreased chance of passing on their genes." Evolution is really about which genes are passed on to the next generation. Most of the population at any given time is going to be less-fit than the fittest (by definition). That doesn't mean they don't pass their genes on. While totally unfit people may not be able to pass on their genes at all, many, if not most, of a generally less-fit population will pass on their genes at least one generation. Depending on the quality of the mate they are able to obtain, their genes may not go further than the one generation, or they may keep going for many generations. On average, the less-fit genes will "die off" but this isn't always the case, for many reasons.
ckluis 13y ago
My favorite one is: Evolution and Creationism should be given equal time in education. Not even the Catholic Church thinks Creationism should be taught (I'm Catholic if it matters) in school as science. From Wikipedia: Here is viewpoint of the Vatican's chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." Cardinal Paul Poupard added that "the faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity." He also warned of the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that "we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism." Fiorenzo Facchini, professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, called intelligent design unscientific, and wrote in the January 16–17, 2006 edition L'Osservatore Romano: "But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science.... It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious." Kenneth R. Miller is another prominent Catholic scientist widely known for vehemently opposing Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design.
- aray 13y ago
  I'm not sure why "not even the Catholic Church" comes into play (is it the standards bar for forcing religious topics in schools?) I'm from the bible belt of the USA, and I've only heard this from protestant christians (some of whom I'd use as the standards bar for the above).
  - ckluis 13y ago
    More from a historical Galileo standpoint of science vs religion.
  - davidgerard 13y ago
    It's only recently the Catholic Church has gone so nutso right-wing - in even recent decades they were heavy on the social justice, relatively speaking.
davidgerard 13y ago
Yeah, but if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? I bet you can't answer me that. (cough)
- krapp 13y ago
  Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, humans and monkeys share a common now extinct ancestor. Or it was aliens.
  - davidgerard 13y ago
    I know, I did write this :-) http://rationalblogs.org/rationalwiki/2013/02/13/if-humans-came-from-monkeys-how-come-there-are-still-monkeys-huh/ http://rationalblogs.org/rationalwiki/2013/02/13/if-humans-c...
    - krapp 13y ago
      oops. I just couldn't resist...
- anywherenotes 13y ago
  And the related question: If God made man from dirt, why is there still dirt?
  - davidgerard 13y ago
    O noes, you have just disproven biology!
- bcoates 13y ago
  There aren't monkeys anymore, that's just a lie Big Nature Documentary is trying to push down our throats. Have you actually seen a monkey outside a carefully staged "exhibit" at a zoo? If you believe that, you probably believe that magicians can conjure a rabbit from a hat.
dabernathy89 13y ago
No matter how it's explained, I still can't wrap my brain around how evolution produces complex systems. How do systems with interdependent processes and parts get produced by a process that seems to proceed stepwise?
- vectorjohn 13y ago
  You're a programmer, right? A lot of people on here are. You know how when starting something completely from scratch, there is so much foundational work to do, making frameworks, helper libraries, classes, etc. You have to do all that stuff before your program can do much (assuming no third party libraries). Well, once your code base (or just your knowledge of existing libraries) is advanced enough, you can more easily combine pieces of it with relatively small changes to the code. You can mix and match parts and the result will be something very complex that may be based on person-years worth of work while only taking a few minutes to assemble. Pieces of code can be removed from the final product with a one line change. While the code still exists in the final product, it isn't referenced anywhere. These are a couple of analogies that help me think about it. They don't explain everything, but it should be enough to make clear that just because evolution works by "stepwise" changes that doesn't mean one step can't create huge differences.
  - dabernathy89 13y ago
    Thanks, that's an interesting way of illustrating it.
- Udo 13y ago
  Complex systems can originate from simple environments. If you're mathematically inclined, I invite you to read Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science", it does a great job of showing processes like this, for example with cellular automata. The key take-away is that complexity isn't necessarily the product of an even more complex birthing mechanism, but that complexity can and does frequently arise from simplicity, a notion most programmers should be familiar with as well. > How do systems with interdependent processes and parts get produced by a process that seems to proceed stepwise? Slowly, and in very small steps. Not every step produces a "useful" change, either: most mutations are fatal, the rest is by and large neutral. The initial biosphere was relatively simple, but after hundreds of millions of years, the system has grown huge and complex. You can visualize evolution by imagining a search space, being explored by a myriad of different configurations (of organisms or machines). Configurations that survive, survive. The others are filtered out. Surviving configurations get to explore more of that search space and the process repeats. Over time, this leads to some pretty neat architectural advances (but any biochemist will agree there's a lot of horrible, unfixable spaghetti code in there as well). We only get the impression of very high complexity and lots of interdependent processes because we look at a very mature ecosystem. Things would be easier to grasp if we were restricted to looking at very early microbes. The principles are the same, though.
b_emery 13y ago
For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what someone wrote down 1000 yrs ago), how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another? We have absolutely zero credible evidence of a creator, an afterlife, or Santa Claus. Pick your religion, what method do you use to evalute it's 'factualness' vs some other religion? Usually the answer is that it's what you were first exposed to. This world would be much better off without the concept of an afterlife. Focus on the here and now, it's all we get.
- ahoy 13y ago
  I don't know the answer to this either, but I've seen this kind of compartmentalization in lots of very smart folks. I know a guy who's a brilliant optics engineer and has had success both in business and academia. He's not sold on climate change as a fact.
  - conanbatt 13y ago
    The fact that you used the word "sold" already implies to me its a matter of faith. Climate change is a highly politicized and potentially corrupt push of an agenda. As Im not working on climate change or related sciences, all I can do is believe on what an alleged aggregate of scientist tell me, its pure faith. Scientists and engineers are the new priests.
- aray 13y ago
  I knew a few semi-religious scientists in the past. They were all in line with what we'd probably accept as scientific reasoning behind natural phenomena, but deferred to religion on more philosophical (and not physical) questions: "Why are we here?" "What's the meaning of life?" "Why should I be good towards other people?" (I know part of these are at least touched on by some of the humanities sciences - moral philosophy and psychology, but the scientists I've experience with were biologists & chemists and not as well versed in those fields as their own)
jcmoscon 13y ago
So, nothing exploded and created everything? How come?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- noonespecial 13y ago
  You're at least asking the question at the right level. Most people get bogged down arguing about how the something that already was became different stuff that was. "Why is there something and not nothing at all?" is an excellent philosophical base to start building a cosmology on.
  - es20641 13y ago
    I was just thinking this when I read your comment. It is probably the largest thing that is holding me to my faith in an a God. Whether or not evolution is true, it explains _how_ our world was created, but not why.
    - kowdermeister 13y ago
      Science doesn't care about 'why' questions. It is also misleading, because it assumes that something has a purpose, which is not necessarily the case.
    - noonespecial 13y ago
      Just remember science is about what and how, when you get to stuff like why, it's philosophy. 90% of all of the ridiculous arguments that seem to happen around this subject appear due to the inability to keep these separate.
    - dsego 13y ago
      Maybe there is no "why". The world is, no reason, at least nothing we could ever understand.
    - BlackDeath3 13y ago
ThomPete 13y ago
The biggest misconception about evolution is shared both opponents and proponents. Most often the discussion is about whether evolution is true or not. Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point. Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve. There are no finite answers in evolution, only observations of phenomena. But those observations best describe the biological world.
- RK 13y ago
  Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point. Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve. I think you mean that the "theory of evolution via natural selection" is the best model we have to explain the observed phenomena of evolution. Analogous to the Newtownian theory of gravity explaining the mechanics of observed terrestrial and celestial gravity. Gravity and evolution are simply there, how they occur requires a theoretical explanation.
  - dismiss21x 13y ago
    I wouldn't say it's observed; no one has observed billions of years of evolution. That's why there is debate. Please don't compare to the observation of gravity; it's not even comparable.
    - meric 13y ago
      I think it is comparable. We do have the fossil record, after all.
      - ThomPete 13y ago
        That does not allow you to conclude that evolution is true the way that you can conclude gravity is true/factual.
        deleted 13y ago
pmelendez 13y ago
> "Bacteria, HIV, malaria, and cancer have evolved resistance to our drugs." Honest question... if HIV is a virus, and virus are not living forms [1], how can they evolve? In that case wouldn't be the host cell the one that evolved? [1] http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/ http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Honest question... if HIV is a virus, and virus are not living forms, how can they evolve? The requirements for evolution are a subset of the requirements for "life", so its quite possible for things that are not alive to evolve. > In that case wouldn't be the host cell the one that evolved? Viruses can be a source of variation in the genetic code of living things that contributes to evolution in the living things, but that's a different effect than the evolution of the virus itself.
- paddlepop 13y ago
  Evolution does not strictly apply to living organisms. Natural selection, which is what I think your referring to, as a mechanism for evolution relies on Mendelian inheritance. The only requirement for Mendelian inheritance is genetic material (DNA or RNA), which viruses obviously have.
- akiselev 13y ago
  No, because the host cell is generally used to produce more viruses and is then lysed to release them. HIV and other retroviruses use RNA to inject DNA strands into the host cell's nucleus where those new genes instruct the cell to produce more viruses. Even if the host cell splits, the genetic machinery is still there for the virus to reproduce. Either way the end result is a bunch of new viruses each with their own genetic code that could have mutated. AFAIK whether or not viruses are living organisms is the equivalent of programming language religions in biology and is quite controversial. I personally look at viruses as living organisms and consider "viral reproduction" amongst sexual and asexual reproduction.
- toasterlovin 13y ago
  Evolution is about replicators. Living things tend to be replicators, but not all replicators are living.
qwerta 13y ago
There are two funny things: - Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory. Genetics, biochemistry and ethology are light years beyond Darwin. It is like discussing Copernicus while scientists are working on quantum gravity. - Evolution does not disprove creation and vice versa. God could use evolution as a tool. And God could also create Earth with all those fossils underground just for a joke. :-)
- Udo 13y ago
  None of these things are funny or true for that matter. > Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory. Evolution as an abstract model is pretty old, but it's not likely to ever be outdated. To this day, it describes accurately what is going on with any kind of adaptive system, not only in biology but also computer science and information theory, and one could make some convincing arguments for physics as well. > Genetics, biochemistry and ethology are light years beyond Darwin. It's true that Darwin didn't necessarily know much about the inner workings of what he was observing. All he could do is make the actual observations, and reason about them. This led to a key idea about how organisms develop, and it is this idea that became part of the basic tool set of any scientist, it's right up there with Pythagoras and Newton. Genetic and biochemical research didn't really exist in Darwin's time, but the principles he described are found everywhere you look in these fields. And if it hadn't been for Darwin, someone else would have found this out, it became gradually more inescapable the more data we gathered. In fact, today it wouldn't be called much of an achievement at all, since the mechanism is so obvious and ubiquitous whenever you look at bio data. > - God could use evolution as a tool. And God could also create Earth with all those fossils underground just for a joke. Those two are actually somewhat mutually exclusive. Either you believe that some kind of deity "uses" evolution as a tool, at which point people should ask themselves what the point of having gods is if they're not actually doing anything measurable at all. The second point, although you meant it as a joke, is actually harder to argue with - because it leaves reason so far behind it becomes difficult to have any meaningful discussion about it at all: there is nothing in principle to say against the argument that our whole environment and history could be manufactured. We would have no way of knowing that, in fact there would be no way of knowing the actual age of the universe. It could be 2 seconds old in that case. All we have to reason against this approach is an argument from plausibility and Occam's razor.
robomartin 13y ago
Well, as far as I am concerned it is a simple matter of people not being intellectually prepared to understand the theory. I am not saying this to be elitist. Not at all. I had a conversation with a guy at a xmas party last year. I don't have a clue how we went where we went but we ended up talking about how "human wizards" can figure out the position of the moon every day and write an app to show you. To this guy this was no different from magic. There is no way in the universe that anyone is going to make a good case in favor of the theory of evolution to this person until he elevates himself a few rungs in the educational ladder. That's just a fact. What about scientists who claim to believe in creationism? For the most part I see it this way: If you are a nobody scientist with no hopes of becoming anyone at all, what is the easiest way to become someone? Thank you Jesus! I've met and have spoken to a few such "scientists" who, for example, teach at religious schools. You can see right through them. They are virtual gods within those organizations. They are elevated to prestigious standings within that community. They are held as proof that someone crossed the proverbial isle and, by the way, he is a honest-to-god scientist. No, they are not. They are business men. And quite smart if you ask me. If you don't see an upshot to your scientific career, go to a religious university and proclaim you've seen the light. They'll have you writing books in short order. Then there are guys like Ben Carson, the ex-Johns Hopkins surgeon republicans are parading around. The guy is obviously very smart yet he is religious to a ridiculous degree. I like a lot of his ideas. The problem is that every third sentence is about religion. I don't know much about him so can't really opine beyond saying that people who are constantly praising god and talking about how everything is preordained and that they are god's tools, etc. scare the crap out of me. Not a huge step from there to Iran. Is he playing a mental game because of his political aspirations? Maybe. Republicans need to realize they are loosing a huge chunk of the population for putting the bible in front of everything they say and do. I digress. I am looking forward to the lecture [0] at Caltech on the 20th given by Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer. Should be interesting. Anyone going? [0] http://www.richarddawkins.net/events/2013/10/21/fall-book-tour-2013-cal-tech-with-michael-shermer http://www.richarddawkins.net/events/2013/10/21/fall-book-to...
dsego 13y ago
I detest evolution. Beings suffering, trapped in limited bodies and minds, forced to kill for survival and plagued with diseases. It's horrible that a person's quality of life relies on the results of a silly genetic lottery. It's a cosmic joke, I tell you. What have these creatures done wrong to deserve such ridicule? http://wtfevolution.tumblr.com http://wtfevolution.tumblr.com

96 points by stiff 13y ago

gohrt 13y ago

Publishing a long list of misconceptions is a really bad way to destroy them. Readers will skim and just remember the headlines, all of which are false statements. Spread facts, not "myths"

rprospero 13y ago
It depends who the audience is. Most individuals I've known who hold these misconceptions wouldn't have bothered going to that page in the first place. So they're not the audience. I am at least part of the audience by definition. I'll admit that I started with a skim of the list of headlines. I then read in detail on the misconceptions I hadn't heard before. I'm now familiar with these misconceptions and can more clearly articulate a response when I encounter them.
lake99 13y ago
> Spread facts, not "myths" I think this guy [1], with his PhD thesis on the topic, would beg to differ. Also, I don't think the website's sole purpose is to destroy them (misconceptions/people?). Some of us lay people who are knowledgeable, but have learnt the wrong factoid, for one reason or another, could still benefit from it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY_o4A1wzsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY_o4A1wzsg
- doorhammer 13y ago
  Yeah. I haven't had time to read the list (I plan on reading it later, ) but the tone from the intro didn't seem to be concerned about destroying people. I'm personally in the camp of folks that picks up information about evolution as I go, since it's not really related to anything I do in my day to day, and I appreciate a concise description of possible misconceptions.
DanBC 13y ago
You need the myths for SEO.

standeven 13y ago

None of the evolution deniers that I've met would have the slightest interest in reading this list, but I suppose it's useful to quickly look up counter-arguments to their claims. A similar site with a greater focus on creationist claims can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

glhaynes 13y ago
The vast majority of evolution deniers I've known wouldn't have the slightest interest, I agree. But, as someone who grew up totally immersed in an evolution-denying atmosphere, I would have been very interested during that time in which I was "seeking the truth." (And indeed I fondly remember from that time the talk.origins page you linked. Thanks for the nostalgia, what a great site!)
es20641 13y ago
As someone who believes in both an intelligent designer creating the world, and micro (but not macro) evolution, I am extremely interested in reading this. I just thought I would let you know :)
- standeven 13y ago
  If you're genuinely interested in reading this and accepting facts that may challenge your beliefs, then I applaud you. Here's some reading to get you started: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
prawn 13y ago
Sadly, many would have little interest in having their perspective challenged at all.
- toasterlovin 13y ago
  "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." -John Kenneth Galbraith

mjt0229 13y ago

I would point anyone who subscribes to any of the several current fad diets to this one: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a8 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq....

darkchasma 13y ago
What fad diets are you referring to?
- prawks 13y ago
  Perhaps Paleo, but I'm not the parent.
- mjt0229 13y ago
  Any diet that is based on an unsubstantiated claim that "humans have not evolved to digest X" where X is something that humans have been eating for thousands of years. Paleo comes to mind, but there are others. The claim made by these diets isn't structurally invalid, but often the claims are made without any investigation and are substantiated by anecdotal evidence that people feel better when eliminating X from their diet. That's fine, but that's not the same thing as being incompatible from an evolutionary standpoint.
darkarmani 13y ago
In particular the milk adaptation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose

anywherenotes 13y ago

Quite interesting. It corrects well the statement "Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population." to: Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b6 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.... I think that's a very important clarification, because we may look around and see very diverse population with very diverse handicaps - from mental to physical, and question how it could be that "survival of the fittest" let all this happen. Information is also organized really well - short paragraphs, easy to consume, with links to more details in some sections. Target audience is probably someone who wants a few questions answered, but not a creationist or a biology scientist.

rdtsc 13y ago
> Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate Would it make sense to turn it around and say "Natural selection is about unfit individuals in a population dying off"
- liber8 13y ago
  The most accurate way to phrase it would be to say that "natural selection is about less fit individuals having a decreased chance of passing on their genes." Evolution is really about which genes are passed on to the next generation. Most of the population at any given time is going to be less-fit than the fittest (by definition). That doesn't mean they don't pass their genes on. While totally unfit people may not be able to pass on their genes at all, many, if not most, of a generally less-fit population will pass on their genes at least one generation. Depending on the quality of the mate they are able to obtain, their genes may not go further than the one generation, or they may keep going for many generations. On average, the less-fit genes will "die off" but this isn't always the case, for many reasons.

ckluis 13y ago

My favorite one is: Evolution and Creationism should be given equal time in education. Not even the Catholic Church thinks Creationism should be taught (I'm Catholic if it matters) in school as science. From Wikipedia: Here is viewpoint of the Vatican's chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." Cardinal Paul Poupard added that "the faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity." He also warned of the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that "we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism." Fiorenzo Facchini, professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, called intelligent design unscientific, and wrote in the January 16–17, 2006 edition L'Osservatore Romano: "But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science.... It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious." Kenneth R. Miller is another prominent Catholic scientist widely known for vehemently opposing Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design.

aray 13y ago
I'm not sure why "not even the Catholic Church" comes into play (is it the standards bar for forcing religious topics in schools?) I'm from the bible belt of the USA, and I've only heard this from protestant christians (some of whom I'd use as the standards bar for the above).
- ckluis 13y ago
  More from a historical Galileo standpoint of science vs religion.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  It's only recently the Catholic Church has gone so nutso right-wing - in even recent decades they were heavy on the social justice, relatively speaking.

davidgerard 13y ago

Yeah, but if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? I bet you can't answer me that. (cough)

krapp 13y ago
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, humans and monkeys share a common now extinct ancestor. Or it was aliens.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  I know, I did write this :-) http://rationalblogs.org/rationalwiki/2013/02/13/if-humans-came-from-monkeys-how-come-there-are-still-monkeys-huh/ http://rationalblogs.org/rationalwiki/2013/02/13/if-humans-c...
  - krapp 13y ago
    oops. I just couldn't resist...
anywherenotes 13y ago
And the related question: If God made man from dirt, why is there still dirt?
- davidgerard 13y ago
  O noes, you have just disproven biology!
bcoates 13y ago
There aren't monkeys anymore, that's just a lie Big Nature Documentary is trying to push down our throats. Have you actually seen a monkey outside a carefully staged "exhibit" at a zoo? If you believe that, you probably believe that magicians can conjure a rabbit from a hat.

dabernathy89 13y ago

No matter how it's explained, I still can't wrap my brain around how evolution produces complex systems. How do systems with interdependent processes and parts get produced by a process that seems to proceed stepwise?

vectorjohn 13y ago
You're a programmer, right? A lot of people on here are. You know how when starting something completely from scratch, there is so much foundational work to do, making frameworks, helper libraries, classes, etc. You have to do all that stuff before your program can do much (assuming no third party libraries). Well, once your code base (or just your knowledge of existing libraries) is advanced enough, you can more easily combine pieces of it with relatively small changes to the code. You can mix and match parts and the result will be something very complex that may be based on person-years worth of work while only taking a few minutes to assemble. Pieces of code can be removed from the final product with a one line change. While the code still exists in the final product, it isn't referenced anywhere. These are a couple of analogies that help me think about it. They don't explain everything, but it should be enough to make clear that just because evolution works by "stepwise" changes that doesn't mean one step can't create huge differences.
- dabernathy89 13y ago
  Thanks, that's an interesting way of illustrating it.
Udo 13y ago
Complex systems can originate from simple environments. If you're mathematically inclined, I invite you to read Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science", it does a great job of showing processes like this, for example with cellular automata. The key take-away is that complexity isn't necessarily the product of an even more complex birthing mechanism, but that complexity can and does frequently arise from simplicity, a notion most programmers should be familiar with as well. > How do systems with interdependent processes and parts get produced by a process that seems to proceed stepwise? Slowly, and in very small steps. Not every step produces a "useful" change, either: most mutations are fatal, the rest is by and large neutral. The initial biosphere was relatively simple, but after hundreds of millions of years, the system has grown huge and complex. You can visualize evolution by imagining a search space, being explored by a myriad of different configurations (of organisms or machines). Configurations that survive, survive. The others are filtered out. Surviving configurations get to explore more of that search space and the process repeats. Over time, this leads to some pretty neat architectural advances (but any biochemist will agree there's a lot of horrible, unfixable spaghetti code in there as well). We only get the impression of very high complexity and lots of interdependent processes because we look at a very mature ecosystem. Things would be easier to grasp if we were restricted to looking at very early microbes. The principles are the same, though.

b_emery 13y ago

For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what someone wrote down 1000 yrs ago), how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another? We have absolutely zero credible evidence of a creator, an afterlife, or Santa Claus. Pick your religion, what method do you use to evalute it's 'factualness' vs some other religion? Usually the answer is that it's what you were first exposed to. This world would be much better off without the concept of an afterlife. Focus on the here and now, it's all we get.

ahoy 13y ago
I don't know the answer to this either, but I've seen this kind of compartmentalization in lots of very smart folks. I know a guy who's a brilliant optics engineer and has had success both in business and academia. He's not sold on climate change as a fact.
- conanbatt 13y ago
  The fact that you used the word "sold" already implies to me its a matter of faith. Climate change is a highly politicized and potentially corrupt push of an agenda. As Im not working on climate change or related sciences, all I can do is believe on what an alleged aggregate of scientist tell me, its pure faith. Scientists and engineers are the new priests.
aray 13y ago
I knew a few semi-religious scientists in the past. They were all in line with what we'd probably accept as scientific reasoning behind natural phenomena, but deferred to religion on more philosophical (and not physical) questions: "Why are we here?" "What's the meaning of life?" "Why should I be good towards other people?" (I know part of these are at least touched on by some of the humanities sciences - moral philosophy and psychology, but the scientists I've experience with were biologists & chemists and not as well versed in those fields as their own)

jcmoscon 13y ago

So, nothing exploded and created everything? How come?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
noonespecial 13y ago
You're at least asking the question at the right level. Most people get bogged down arguing about how the something that already was became different stuff that was. "Why is there something and not nothing at all?" is an excellent philosophical base to start building a cosmology on.
- es20641 13y ago
  I was just thinking this when I read your comment. It is probably the largest thing that is holding me to my faith in an a God. Whether or not evolution is true, it explains _how_ our world was created, but not why.
  - kowdermeister 13y ago
    Science doesn't care about 'why' questions. It is also misleading, because it assumes that something has a purpose, which is not necessarily the case.
  - noonespecial 13y ago
    Just remember science is about what and how, when you get to stuff like why, it's philosophy. 90% of all of the ridiculous arguments that seem to happen around this subject appear due to the inability to keep these separate.
  - dsego 13y ago
    Maybe there is no "why". The world is, no reason, at least nothing we could ever understand.
  - BlackDeath3 13y ago

ThomPete 13y ago

The biggest misconception about evolution is shared both opponents and proponents. Most often the discussion is about whether evolution is true or not. Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point. Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve. There are no finite answers in evolution, only observations of phenomena. But those observations best describe the biological world.

RK 13y ago
Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point. Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve. I think you mean that the "theory of evolution via natural selection" is the best model we have to explain the observed phenomena of evolution. Analogous to the Newtownian theory of gravity explaining the mechanics of observed terrestrial and celestial gravity. Gravity and evolution are simply there, how they occur requires a theoretical explanation.
- dismiss21x 13y ago
  I wouldn't say it's observed; no one has observed billions of years of evolution. That's why there is debate. Please don't compare to the observation of gravity; it's not even comparable.
  - meric 13y ago
    I think it is comparable. We do have the fossil record, after all.
    - ThomPete 13y ago
      That does not allow you to conclude that evolution is true the way that you can conclude gravity is true/factual.
      - deleted 13y ago

pmelendez 13y ago

> "Bacteria, HIV, malaria, and cancer have evolved resistance to our drugs." Honest question... if HIV is a virus, and virus are not living forms [1], how can they evolve? In that case wouldn't be the host cell the one that evolved? [1] http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/ http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Honest question... if HIV is a virus, and virus are not living forms, how can they evolve? The requirements for evolution are a subset of the requirements for "life", so its quite possible for things that are not alive to evolve. > In that case wouldn't be the host cell the one that evolved? Viruses can be a source of variation in the genetic code of living things that contributes to evolution in the living things, but that's a different effect than the evolution of the virus itself.
paddlepop 13y ago
Evolution does not strictly apply to living organisms. Natural selection, which is what I think your referring to, as a mechanism for evolution relies on Mendelian inheritance. The only requirement for Mendelian inheritance is genetic material (DNA or RNA), which viruses obviously have.
akiselev 13y ago
No, because the host cell is generally used to produce more viruses and is then lysed to release them. HIV and other retroviruses use RNA to inject DNA strands into the host cell's nucleus where those new genes instruct the cell to produce more viruses. Even if the host cell splits, the genetic machinery is still there for the virus to reproduce. Either way the end result is a bunch of new viruses each with their own genetic code that could have mutated. AFAIK whether or not viruses are living organisms is the equivalent of programming language religions in biology and is quite controversial. I personally look at viruses as living organisms and consider "viral reproduction" amongst sexual and asexual reproduction.
toasterlovin 13y ago
Evolution is about replicators. Living things tend to be replicators, but not all replicators are living.

qwerta 13y ago

There are two funny things: - Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory. Genetics, biochemistry and ethology are light years beyond Darwin. It is like discussing Copernicus while scientists are working on quantum gravity. - Evolution does not disprove creation and vice versa. God could use evolution as a tool. And God could also create Earth with all those fossils underground just for a joke. :-)

Udo 13y ago
None of these things are funny or true for that matter. > Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory. Evolution as an abstract model is pretty old, but it's not likely to ever be outdated. To this day, it describes accurately what is going on with any kind of adaptive system, not only in biology but also computer science and information theory, and one could make some convincing arguments for physics as well. > Genetics, biochemistry and ethology are light years beyond Darwin. It's true that Darwin didn't necessarily know much about the inner workings of what he was observing. All he could do is make the actual observations, and reason about them. This led to a key idea about how organisms develop, and it is this idea that became part of the basic tool set of any scientist, it's right up there with Pythagoras and Newton. Genetic and biochemical research didn't really exist in Darwin's time, but the principles he described are found everywhere you look in these fields. And if it hadn't been for Darwin, someone else would have found this out, it became gradually more inescapable the more data we gathered. In fact, today it wouldn't be called much of an achievement at all, since the mechanism is so obvious and ubiquitous whenever you look at bio data. > - God could use evolution as a tool. And God could also create Earth with all those fossils underground just for a joke. Those two are actually somewhat mutually exclusive. Either you believe that some kind of deity "uses" evolution as a tool, at which point people should ask themselves what the point of having gods is if they're not actually doing anything measurable at all. The second point, although you meant it as a joke, is actually harder to argue with - because it leaves reason so far behind it becomes difficult to have any meaningful discussion about it at all: there is nothing in principle to say against the argument that our whole environment and history could be manufactured. We would have no way of knowing that, in fact there would be no way of knowing the actual age of the universe. It could be 2 seconds old in that case. All we have to reason against this approach is an argument from plausibility and Occam's razor.

robomartin 13y ago

Well, as far as I am concerned it is a simple matter of people not being intellectually prepared to understand the theory. I am not saying this to be elitist. Not at all. I had a conversation with a guy at a xmas party last year. I don't have a clue how we went where we went but we ended up talking about how "human wizards" can figure out the position of the moon every day and write an app to show you. To this guy this was no different from magic. There is no way in the universe that anyone is going to make a good case in favor of the theory of evolution to this person until he elevates himself a few rungs in the educational ladder. That's just a fact. What about scientists who claim to believe in creationism? For the most part I see it this way: If you are a nobody scientist with no hopes of becoming anyone at all, what is the easiest way to become someone? Thank you Jesus! I've met and have spoken to a few such "scientists" who, for example, teach at religious schools. You can see right through them. They are virtual gods within those organizations. They are elevated to prestigious standings within that community. They are held as proof that someone crossed the proverbial isle and, by the way, he is a honest-to-god scientist. No, they are not. They are business men. And quite smart if you ask me. If you don't see an upshot to your scientific career, go to a religious university and proclaim you've seen the light. They'll have you writing books in short order. Then there are guys like Ben Carson, the ex-Johns Hopkins surgeon republicans are parading around. The guy is obviously very smart yet he is religious to a ridiculous degree. I like a lot of his ideas. The problem is that every third sentence is about religion. I don't know much about him so can't really opine beyond saying that people who are constantly praising god and talking about how everything is preordained and that they are god's tools, etc. scare the crap out of me. Not a huge step from there to Iran. Is he playing a mental game because of his political aspirations? Maybe. Republicans need to realize they are loosing a huge chunk of the population for putting the bible in front of everything they say and do. I digress. I am looking forward to the lecture [0] at Caltech on the 20th given by Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer. Should be interesting. Anyone going? [0] http://www.richarddawkins.net/events/2013/10/21/fall-book-tour-2013-cal-tech-with-michael-shermer http://www.richarddawkins.net/events/2013/10/21/fall-book-to...

dsego 13y ago

I detest evolution. Beings suffering, trapped in limited bodies and minds, forced to kill for survival and plagued with diseases. It's horrible that a person's quality of life relies on the results of a silly genetic lottery. It's a cosmic joke, I tell you. What have these creatures done wrong to deserve such ridicule? http://wtfevolution.tumblr.com http://wtfevolution.tumblr.com