Jump to content


Photo

25 Common Misconceptions About Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
142 replies to this topic

#61 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 02 August 2012 - 02:32 PM

Isabella, nice OP and well supported followups.

Rich

Yep excellent post. It might not be real proof of anything but at least it gives an idea of where evolutionists stand and what they really believe.

#62 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 August 2012 - 12:58 AM

mmm. Not really, it rather seems the points are debunked pretty easily.

#63 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:10 AM

There seems to be some confusion here.

The list I created is NOT called “25 Reasons Why Evolution is True”. It is NOT a list of pro-evolution arguments. It is a list of beliefs held by evolutionists.

It is perfectly acceptable to state the beliefs of an individual or group without providing evidence to support the validity of those beliefs. For example, I could accurately say that the ancient Greeks worshiped several gods. I do not have to provide evidence for the existence of these gods in order to make the correct observation that the ancient Greeks worshiped them. To say that the Greeks worshiped several gods is completely different than saying “The Greek gods created the universe.”

In this particular thread, I am NOT claiming that the beliefs I have listed are true, hence why I did not provide any supporting evidence. My intention here was only to illustrate the viewpoint held by evolutionists, with the hope that it will not be misrepresented in future debates. Whether the beliefs themselves are true is another topic entirely, and not the topic of this thread.

#64 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:52 AM

There seems to be some confusion here.

The list I created is NOT called “25 Reasons Why Evolution is True”. It is NOT a list of pro-evolution arguments. It is a list of beliefs held by evolutionists.

It is perfectly acceptable to state the beliefs of an individual or group without providing evidence to support the validity of those beliefs. For example, I could accurately say that the ancient Greeks worshiped several gods. I do not have to provide evidence for the existence of these gods in order to make the correct observation that the ancient Greeks worshiped them. To say that the Greeks worshiped several gods is completely different than saying “The Greek gods created the universe.”

In this particular thread, I am NOT claiming that the beliefs I have listed are true, hence why I did not provide any supporting evidence. My intention here was only to illustrate the viewpoint held by evolutionists, with the hope that it will not be misrepresented in future debates. Whether the beliefs themselves are true is another topic entirely, and not the topic of this thread.


What you are saying does make sense, but to be perfectly honest, your point 1 clearly states "According to evolutionists", but then you fail to use that same phrase for your other 24 points. So it definitely makes it sound like you are stating that the facts themselves contradict some creationist assumptions, instead of listing your beliefs/evolutionary theory as being different to those creationist assumptions..

Read it again and you will see how it comes across, its sounds like you are stating evolution as fact instead of being theory, especially your points 2-4, 6, 7 and 11.

#65 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 August 2012 - 04:54 AM

Get your point Isabella. But one also needs to be careful with stating what others believe (straw man) and at least state where that has been picked up. Fact is that informed creationists do indeed know what they claims made by evolutionists are and also that there are some popular misconceptions in the public about it. I should add that these misconceptions are partially conveyed by public education and the main stream media, both institutions are highly sympathetic to evolutionism.

#66 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 27 August 2012 - 10:26 AM

What you are saying does make sense, but to be perfectly honest, your point 1 clearly states "According to evolutionists", but then you fail to use that same phrase for your other 24 points. So it definitely makes it sound like you are stating that the facts themselves contradict some creationist assumptions, instead of listing your beliefs/evolutionary theory as being different to those creationist assumptions..

Read it again and you will see how it comes across, its sounds like you are stating evolution as fact instead of being theory, especially your points 2-4, 6, 7 and 11.


I see how it could come across that way if someone failed to read my OP in its entirety, and only skimmed my list. In the very first paragraph of my OP, I clearly state that the purpose of my post is not to start a debate, but rather to clarify the evolutionary viewpoint. Yes, I could have started every single point with “According to evolution...” or “Evolutionists believe...” but for anyone who took the time to actually read the whole post I thought this was already implied... and I dislike excessive redundancy in my writing.

If it was not clear, I hope I have clarified it now and there will be no more confusion moving forward.

#67 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 27 August 2012 - 10:42 AM

Get your point Isabella. But one also needs to be careful with stating what others believe (straw man) and at least state where that has been picked up.


Stating the beliefs of a group is not a straw man argument unless those beliefs are being incorrectly represented. I have spent years studying genetics and evolution, interacting directly with both theistic and atheistic evolutionists on a daily basis. I feel confident that my list correctly represents the beliefs held by the majority of evolutionists, but if anyone disagrees I am open to being challenged. As I said in my OP, “...if you feel that any of the below points have been wrongly labelled as false I would like to hear your reasoning.” Thus the discussion question I was hoping to raise in this thread was not “Are these points true?” but rather, “Is it true that most evolutionists believe this things?”

Fact is that informed creationists do indeed know what they claims made by evolutionists are and also that there are some popular misconceptions in the public about it. I should add that these misconceptions are partially conveyed by public education and the main stream media, both institutions are highly sympathetic to evolutionism.


I compiled this list of misconceptions based largely on straw man arguments I have seen creationists use right here on this forum. I suspect that in many cases the straw man arguments were probably unintentional, resulting from a genuine misunderstanding of the evolutionary viewpoint. Evolution is misrepresented in the media all the time, even in pro-evolution articles, TV shows, etc. The best way to learn accurate and contemporary information about evolution is to read a peer reviewed journal, or a book that cites peer reviewed articles to support its claims.

#68 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 August 2012 - 11:00 AM

Stating the beliefs of a group is not a straw man argument unless those beliefs are being incorrectly represented. I have spent years studying genetics and evolution, interacting directly with both theistic and atheistic evolutionists on a daily basis. ...

I was referring to the "misconceptions" you were knocking down. I mean it's simple to cherry pick stuff that suits you, if you only can spent enough time on browsing around to find what you want. I btw. die spent years studying logik and rhetoric, interacting directly with people from different schools of epistemology and philosophy of science. So I have a pretty good idea to look through how people are building their arguments and to deconstruct their fallacies. I don't find all the examples to bad tough. But some really are.

I compiled this list of misconceptions based largely on straw man arguments I have seen creationists use right here on this forum.

You mind to quote them? And I would expect this to be from frequent posters.

I suspect that in many cases the straw man arguments were probably unintentional, resulting from a genuine misunderstanding of the evolutionary viewpoint. Evolution is misrepresented in the media all the time, even in pro-evolution articles, TV shows, etc. The best way to learn accurate and contemporary information about evolution is to read a peer reviewed journal, or a book that cites peer reviewed articles to support its claims.

.... Or simply from some undergraduate textbooks in biology I would presume. Interestingly I found that peer reviewed journals often don't teach the fundamentals of the theory, they assume them and then pass on the idea via innuendo.

#69 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:15 PM

I was referring to the "misconceptions" you were knocking down. I mean it's simple to cherry pick stuff that suits you, if you only can spent enough time on browsing around to find what you want.


It’s an informal list based on my own experiences. It’s not “The Official 25 Most Common Misconceptions about Evolution”, and I never tried to pass it off as such. It’s just some misconceptions that I personally have encountered over the years in various situations, enough times that they have stuck in my memory.

You mind to quote them? And I would expect this to be from frequent posters.


I did not make this list with the intention of pointing fingers or accusing specific forum members of using straw man arguments. I haven’t been taking notes every time I see a straw man argument used, so I’d actually have to search through the forum and find examples. Also, it seems that my posts prior to 2011 are no longer on record, so I don’t have access to all of the content that inspired my list in the first place.

One relatively recent thread that does come to mind is this one:

http://evolutionfair...l=&fromsearch=1

In that thread alone I see examples of misconceptions 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20. If you want the specific quotes, send me a message. Like I said, I have no desire to start pointing fingers.

.... Or simply from some undergraduate textbooks in biology I would presume. Interestingly I found that peer reviewed journals often don't teach the fundamentals of the theory, they assume them and then pass on the idea via innuendo.


Yes, undergraduate textbooks typically have citations throughout.

If you’re looking for an article that explains the fundamentals, your best bet would be a review article in journal like Nature or Science. These journals are not specific to one field of science, and thus the articles are written for a more general audience. A journal that deals exclusively with evolutionary biology probably won’t go over the basics, since it’s assumed that the majority of readers are biologists.

#70 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 27 August 2012 - 05:25 PM

Isabella. Wow! What spin! But I am not buying it. You are an atheist correct? And you do believe in evolution? That means you think evolution is true, correct? Well, as we say here in the states, "If it's the only game in town..."

Acording to atheism and evo scientists, evo is the only game in town. Atheism and evo is a fact! And since it is, evo is resonsible for my belief in God and your belief in atheism. Evo is responsible for evolving the idea of one God or many, religion etc. Evo is responsible for everything!

My problem with evo is that it does not make sense to many of the people that it allegedly evolved! Go figure.

As a believer in atheism and evolution you really ouight to accept the ramifications of what you believe! Evo is not responsible for racism? Please! Social Darwinism was real. Hitler Stalin et al were only helping out evolution by getting rid of unfit millions! Since evo evolved Hitler et al evo is responsible for what these men did.

Racism is real and you believe it is or you would not have brung it up! The only cause of it has to be evo! There is no god and we can't blame a non existent being for anything, now can we?

I am honest with you. I do not believe in evolution! I do believe in God! According to atheisitc evo, that makes me totally wrong, wrong, wrong! I accept that as a fact (an evo fact) And just to advise you, don't read any hostility into this post 'cause there is none behind it. I respect you and your position as an evo atheist. But please accept responsibility for what you say you believe!

Look at the world that evo has given us! Which do you like best, love or hate? Evo has given us a choice. Wow evo is wonderful! Somehow evo has given us the ability to choose whether we want to believe in it or not! And since evo has given us intelligence maybe it's time to use the intelligence evo has given us solve our problems. What do you think?

Admit it you think evo is right!

#71 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 28 August 2012 - 12:29 AM

I see how it could come across that way if someone failed to read my OP in its entirety, and only skimmed my list. In the very first paragraph of my OP, I clearly state that the purpose of my post is not to start a debate, but rather to clarify the evolutionary viewpoint. Yes, I could have started every single point with “According to evolution...” or “Evolutionists believe...” but for anyone who took the time to actually read the whole post I thought this was already implied... and I dislike excessive redundancy in my writing.

If it was not clear, I hope I have clarified it now and there will be no more confusion moving forward.


Lol, there will always be confusion on forums!

You should try being a creationist on an evolution forum, the straw man arguments, misunderstandings, insults etc etc Internet forums are very frustrating and there will always be the stubborn and ill-informed on both sides. I myself am still learning these topics and so also fall into the category "ill-informed" sometimes, but I found that most of your 25 points in the opening post are common knowledge.

I was interested in your second point, that all current life-forms have been evolving for the same period. That is definitely one way of looking at evolutionary theory, obviously based on the assumption that life spontaneously created itself on earth only once, and all life has come from that one biological entity, which is a huge assumption on its own. But even so, if you believe that some "primitive life-forms" have not changed much because they have retained their fitness, to be semantically correct they have not actually evolved if they have stayed the same. So evolutionary theory may disagree with you on that particular point, theoretically some bacteria stopped evolving 500 million years ago because they have maintained fitness with no need for change. So this "misconception" is partially correct, according to evolutionary theory there are some primitive "less evolved" life-forms that have retained the same basic genetic chromosomal organisation and retained fitness with very little evolving, and there are other "more evolved" life-forms that have dramatically transformed.

#72 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 August 2012 - 12:03 PM

Lol, there will always be confusion on forums!

You should try being a creationist on an evolution forum, the straw man arguments, misunderstandings, insults etc etc Internet forums are very frustrating and there will always be the stubborn and ill-informed on both sides. I myself am still learning these topics and so also fall into the category "ill-informed" sometimes, but I found that most of your 25 points in the opening post are common knowledge.

I was interested in your second point, that all current life-forms have been evolving for the same period. That is definitely one way of looking at evolutionary theory, obviously based on the assumption that life spontaneously created itself on earth only once, and all life has come from that one biological entity, which is a huge assumption on its own. But even so, if you believe that some "primitive life-forms" have not changed much because they have retained their fitness, to be semantically correct they have not actually evolved if they have stayed the same. So evolutionary theory may disagree with you on that particular point, theoretically some bacteria stopped evolving 500 million years ago because they have maintained fitness with no need for change. So this "misconception" is partially correct, according to evolutionary theory there are some primitive "less evolved" life-forms that have retained the same basic genetic chromosomal organisation and retained fitness with very little evolving, and there are other "more evolved" life-forms that have dramatically transformed.


Dawkins says in a youtube interview that the orginal genetic code that caused life exists in an unborken chain from the first replicating cell t'ill today That's a copy of a copy of a copy etc--some astronomical number of duplications spanning over 3.8 billion years. Can you imagine the copying erros (genetic entropy) that would have obliterated the original code by now.

#73 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:27 PM

There seems to be some confusion here. The list I created is NOT called “25 Reasons Why Evolution is True”. It is NOT a list of pro-evolution arguments. [size=5]It is a list of beliefs held by evolutionists. . My intention here was only to illustrate the viewpoint held by evolutionists, with the hope that it will not be misrepresented in future debates. Whether the beliefs themselves are true is another topic entirely, and not the topic of this thread.

Well that does make sense. However just to sneak a jab in, a belief is is a faith statement(that has religious implications). So I guess your statement was a "Freudian slip!" lol.

I recently viewed a debate between Willian Provine of Cornell University and Phillip E. Johnson of Berkley (on youtube). In the debate Provine makes the quip that there is no "free moral agency."
Provine is an evolutionist. The implications of his statemn are disaterous to our debates here. Our mental state is an illusion. We do not make decisions, we we only think we do. Furthermore, there is no "mental state'"--our "is mental state" purely chemical matter--something I always believed was a static entity. I must confess I have heard few things as patently ridiculust as his statement--we do not make decisions we only think we do? Wow!

Does evolutionary belief support the idea that theists and non believers are victims of mutations that cause us to believe in God or not--to believe in evolution or creationism? Has evo science identified such gene mutations? And how would the selection process play out in such a scenario-- causing Christian as well as evolutionist to come into existence? Currently they both seem seem to reproduce with similar capacity.


I ask these questions in reference to your 25 beliefs which would be implied to be caused by matter (or perhaps chemical mutations).

#74 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:12 PM

Hi Mike,

Isabella. Wow! What spin! But I am not buying it. You are an atheist correct? And you do believe in evolution? That means you think evolution is true, correct? Well, as we say here in the states, "If it's the only game in town..."

I am honest with you. I do not believe in evolution! I do believe in God! According to atheisitc evo, that makes me totally wrong, wrong, wrong! I accept that as a fact (an evo fact) And just to advise you, don't read any hostility into this post 'cause there is none behind it. I respect you and your position as an evo atheist. But please accept responsibility for what you say you believe!


I do accept responsibility for what I believe. As my profile clearly states, I am an evolutionist and therefore I believe evolution is true. I’m not trying to deny that. But my goal in this thread (and for the last three years on this forum) has not been to convince people that I’m right or convert creationists into evolutionists. My goal is to help creationists to better understand the theory of evolution. If you think evolution is completely false, that’s fine by me. I just want to make sure you fully understand the theory you’re so adamantly against. Straw man arguments are my biggest pet peeve.

As a believer in atheism and evolution you really ouight to accept the ramifications of what you believe! Evo is not responsible for racism? Please! Social Darwinism was real. Hitler Stalin et al were only helping out evolution by getting rid of unfit millions! Since evo evolved Hitler et al evo is responsible for what these men did.


I could turn this argument right back at you. You believe that God created people, and people are responsible for racism, child P*rn*gr*phy, rape, torture, murder, domestic abuse, etc. Does that mean that creationism promotes these things?

Also, and if you think Hitler and Stalin “helped out” evolution by killing off the “unfit”, perhaps you need to go back to my OP and re-read points 12, 13, and 14.

Look at the world that evo has given us! Which do you like best, love or hate? Evo has given us a choice. Wow evo is wonderful! Somehow evo has given us the ability to choose whether we want to believe in it or not! And since evo has given us intelligence maybe it's time to use the intelligence evo has given us solve our problems. What do you think?


Well we do use intelligence to solve problems, every day. Not sure if this question is rhetorical, but if you’d like a serious answer from me you’ll have to elaborate.

#75 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:51 PM

I was interested in your second point, that all current life-forms have been evolving for the same period. That is definitely one way of looking at evolutionary theory, obviously based on the assumption that life spontaneously created itself on earth only once, and all life has come from that one biological entity, which is a huge assumption on its own. But even so, if you believe that some "primitive life-forms" have not changed much because they have retained their fitness, to be semantically correct they have not actually evolved if they have stayed the same. So evolutionary theory may disagree with you on that particular point, theoretically some bacteria stopped evolving 500 million years ago because they have maintained fitness with no need for change. So this "misconception" is partially correct, according to evolutionary theory there are some primitive "less evolved" life-forms that have retained the same basic genetic chromosomal organisation and retained fitness with very little evolving, and there are other "more evolved" life-forms that have dramatically transformed.


Dawkins says in a youtube interview that the orginal genetic code that caused life exists in an unborken chain from the first replicating cell t'ill today That's a copy of a copy of a copy etc--some astronomical number of duplications spanning over 3.8 billion years. Can you imagine the copying erros (genetic entropy) that would have obliterated the original code by now.


These points relate to each other quite nicely, so I’ll address them both at once. And I will also preface my response with a very clear “According to Evolution...”

It may be counterintuitive, but populations that have stayed the same over long periods of time are still the result of evolutionary forces. If it were hypothetically possible to maintain a population of bacteria in an environment with absolutely no limiting factors for several generations, they would slowly accumulate deleterious mutations and become less fit. However, no such natural environment exists. Any given living organism is subject to environmental factors, whether biotic (ex. competition) or abiotic (ex. temperature).

If a genetic sequence remains the same over a long period of time, it does not indicate a lack of evolution. Instead, it indicates that the same selective pressures have been acting on the sequence. As a fictional example to illustrate my point, let’s say a population of bacteria uses an enzyme that functions optimally at 60 degrees Celsius. These bacteria live in a warm hot spring that has remained constant at 60 degrees for many generations. If the gene coding for the enzyme mutates (which is likely to happen over time), the enzyme functions optimally at 58 degrees Celsius. These mutant bacteria will be less fit, and therefore less likely to reproduce. As a result, bacteria with the mutant gene will never outnumber the fit, non-mutant bacteria. So the population is not genetically stagnant over time: allele frequencies are constantly changing due to mutation and drift, but environmental factors (the water temperature, in this example) result in stabilizing selection and as such the bacteria appear to be unchanged.

However, let’s suppose we removed a sample of bacteria and put them in a hot spring with a constant temperature of 58 degrees Celsius. Now the mutant gene will be advantageous, and after a few generations we would expect the mutant bacteria to outnumber the non-mutants in this new environment. So are the mutant bacteria “more evolved” or “higher” than the non-mutants? Not at all. Both populations of bacteria are equally “evolved”, but differ genetically because of their environments.

#76 Tirian

Tirian

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:03 PM

It may be counterintuitive, but populations that have stayed the same over long periods of time are still the result of evolutionary forces. If it were hypothetically possible to maintain a population of bacteria in an environment with absolutely no limiting factors for several generations, they would slowly accumulate deleterious mutations and become less fit. However, no such natural environment exists. Any given living organism is subject to environmental factors, whether biotic (ex. competition) or abiotic (ex. temperature).

If a genetic sequence remains the same over a long period of time, it does not indicate a lack of evolution. Instead, it indicates that the same selective pressures have been acting on the sequence. As a fictional example to illustrate my point, let’s say a population of bacteria uses an enzyme that functions optimally at 60 degrees Celsius. These bacteria live in a warm hot spring that has remained constant at 60 degrees for many generations. If the gene coding for the enzyme mutates (which is likely to happen over time), the enzyme functions optimally at 58 degrees Celsius. These mutant bacteria will be less fit, and therefore less likely to reproduce. As a result, bacteria with the mutant gene will never outnumber the fit, non-mutant bacteria. So the population is not genetically stagnant over time: allele frequencies are constantly changing due to mutation and drift, but environmental factors (the water temperature, in this example) result in stabilizing selection and as such the bacteria appear to be unchanged.

However, let’s suppose we removed a sample of bacteria and put them in a hot spring with a constant temperature of 58 degrees Celsius. Now the mutant gene will be advantageous, and after a few generations we would expect the mutant bacteria to outnumber the non-mutants in this new environment. So are the mutant bacteria “more evolved” or “higher” than the non-mutants? Not at all. Both populations of bacteria are equally “evolved”, but differ genetically because of their environments.


But is this not a misconception on your part Isabella? Evolution is the change in inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. If the inherited characteristics have not changed the population have not evolved. Or what kind of definition of evolution are you using to back up your claim that populations that do not change over time evolve? What you just described is that natural selection might hinder changes in inherited characteristics over time. In that case natural selection seems to act as a preserver of the already existing characteristics for that species and hinder it to evolve.

And why is it wrong to call a bacteria less evolved (i.e. less change over time) than for example a fish? Shouldn't something more evolved simple be a species that have changed its inherited characteristics more over a certain amount of time then a less evolved species.
  • JayShel and NewPath like this

#77 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:04 AM

These points relate to each other quite nicely, so I’ll address them both at once. And I will also preface my response with a very clear “According to Evolution...”


Nice one!



It may be counterintuitive, but populations that have stayed the same over long periods of time are still the result of evolutionary forces. If it were hypothetically possible to maintain a population of bacteria in an environment with absolutely no limiting factors for several generations, they would slowly accumulate deleterious mutations and become less fit. However, no such natural environment exists. Any given living organism is subject to environmental factors, whether biotic (ex. competition) or abiotic (ex. temperature).


It IS counterintuitive.

I will just have to agree to disagree here, if evolutionary theory agrees that in a particular organism evolutionary forces retain the same basic DNA and outward structures, I believe this would be an unchanged organism that has not evolved. So I don't believe your point 2 is a misconception based on the very definition of evolving which relates to change, as Tirian correctly pointed out in the post above. This may be a semantic disagreement , nevertheless hopefully you will have more understanding towards this particular "misconception" in future.

#78 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:45 AM

Dawkins says in a youtube interview that the orginal genetic code that caused life exists in an unborken chain from the first replicating cell t'ill today That's a copy of a copy of a copy etc--some astronomical number of duplications spanning over 3.8 billion years. Can you imagine the copying erros (genetic entropy) that would have obliterated the original code by now.


Exactly! I wish I knew enough about the field to actually put numbers to the rapidity of observed devolution. I personally believe there is some sort of natural selection going on, but it reflects life-forms trying to cope with rapid devolution, reduced complexity and increased mutations that somehow infiltrate populations. This damage occurs faster than organisms are able to naturally de-select the damage out of populations. With a steady increase in genetic disease its ironically the disabling of genes that often causes increased fitness to an organism thus devolving from an already existing complex organism is actually the more observed process, increasing complexity has yet to be proven. The novel production of proteins to cause a new function that increases general fitness is completely unobserved in reality.

The scientific predictive qualities of this theory of rapid devolution is increasing extinctions and poor attempts of the surviving life-forms to rapidly adapt to fill the ecological gaps left behind. I believe this is what is being observed today yet don't know where to get the numbers from.

The male Y-chromosome is particularly vulnerable to deteriation over time due to no recombination, and it would be interesting to predict the future of the human race based on current rates of deteriation of fertility. The very existence of mankind over evolutionary timeframes seems miraculous considering these facts.

#79 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:58 AM

Hi Isabella

Thanks for your response. I know it takes time to write a response so I really appreciate your efforts to help me understand evolution.Hope everthing is going well for you in school.

I think you have misunderstood my question that prompted this response. Perhaps I did not express the question clearly. For the sake of our discussion I concede that there is no God. Logically then, materialistic evolution would have to responsible for whatever exists. Since you are right, I accept that you could not be wrong! My belief in God would therefore bebe an evolutionary illusion. Correct.?

I could turn this argument right back at you. You believe that God created people, and people are responsible for racism, child P*rn*gr*phy, rape, torture, murder, domestic abuse, etc. Does that mean that creationism promotes these things?


For a simple answer, yes it does. Creativity by definition, is the ability to bring something into existence that did not exist before. Therefore, no one knows what anyone could create. As you can well imagine "giving" someone creative ability could be quite dangerous (the atom bomb for example). Of course creativity could also result in many neutral and enjoyable creations. My belief is that God put us here on earth in a training program which involves essentially learning what not to create. For me I am learning not to create anything that would do damage or harm to another creative being.

Also, and if you think Hitler and Stalin “helped out” evolution by killing off the “unfit”, perhaps you need to go back to my OP and re-read points 12, 13, and 14

[

In view of your answer to my current question, what Hitler et al did would be the responsibility of evolution (since God does not exist).

I would appreciate a response to the following question;

.
I recently viewed a debate between Willian Provine of Cornell University and Phillip E. Johnson of Berkley (on youtube). In the debate Provine makes the quip that there is no "free moral agency."
Provine is an evolutionist. The implications of his statemn are disaterous to our debates here. Our mental state is an illusion. We do not make decisions, we we only think we do. Furthermore, there is no "mental state'"--our "is mental state" purely chemical matter--something I always believed was a static entity. I must confess I have heard few things as patently ridiculust as his statement--we do not make decisions we only think we do? Wow!

Does evolutionary belief support the idea that theists and non believers are victims of mutations that cause us to believe in God or not--to believe in evolution or creationism? Has evo science identified such gene mutations? And how would the selection process play out in such a scenario-- causing Christian as well as evolutionist to come into existence? Currently they both seem seem to reproduce with similar capacity.


I ask these questions in reference to your 25 beliefs which would be implied to be caused by matter (or perhaps chemical mutations).


Mike

#80 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 30 August 2012 - 07:31 PM

Well that does make sense. However just to sneak a jab in, a belief is is a faith statement(that has religious implications). So I guess your statement was a "Freudian slip!" lol.


A belief does not necessarily have to be entirely based on faith; beliefs can be based on evidence as well. Also, I disagree that faith and religion are one in the same.

Does evolutionary belief support the idea that theists and non believers are victims of mutations that cause us to believe in God or not--to believe in evolution or creationism? Has evo science identified such gene mutations? And how would the selection process play out in such a scenario-- causing Christian as well as evolutionist to come into existence? Currently they both seem seem to reproduce with similar capacity.


There have been some evolutionary hypotheses put forth regarding the development of religion. One hypothesis suggests that religion is a by-product of the human brain’s aptitude for detecting purpose and intent. The idea is that there’s an advantage to guessing the intentions of other people or animals, but our brains have become so good at doing this that we sometimes attach intentions to non-living things.

I’ve also heard about a genetic mutation that makes people more likely to be religious. I don’t know very much about this mutation, and I have no idea how much research has been done or whether it is largely speculation. You can Google “God Gene” if you’re curious, and you’re bound to get some interesting results.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users