Evolution Misconceptions....

Originally posted by babloyi
aside from the current arguement, there is one thing that I cannot let go unnoticed. A dog is not a new species of wolf. They are almost the same. They can breed, produce offspring, and their offspring can also produce offspring. I don't think anyone actually said that dogs is a separate species from wolves

I know, which is why I said maybe in a couple thousand years they will not be able to reproduce. I believe they are a sub-species. They are still dramatically different from wolves though, from behavior to physical characteristics.

I seriously doubt that. A "couple of thousand years" is a relatively short time for anything to change. If it ever got to the point where dogs evolved so much that they wouldn't be able to breed with wolves, they would also have evolved so much that they would not be able to breed with current day dogs either.

I like to think evolution as a family tree. The question about why chimps are still around is a non-starter in this context. Humans did not evolve from chimps, or neanderthals for that matter. Neanderthals evolved from one of our evolutionary ancestors and lived simutainously with the our race of humans, before disappearing (not known for sure why) a relatively short time ago.

They probably dissappeared because we either mated with em or ate them.

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Darwin never said that man descended from monkeys, he said that man and monkey have a common ancestor. That ancient ancestor is not to be confused with modern monkeys.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Not only are there many examples of transitional forms, but the example pointed out as nonexistent happens to be the best-known of all of these, namely, the Archaeopteryx, which had both avian and reptilian features. It had teeth, like a reptile would, but also feathers, which no reptile has.

Even before Darwin, there were already certain circumstances that hinted at the fact of evolution, and they offer overwhelming, unquestionable proof:

1) Artificial selection-- For thousands of years, livestock breeders and gardeners had been selecting certain individuals for reproduction purposes because they possessed desirable traits, and in time these traits were enhanced greatly, which suggested that in their natural state something similar could be happening, and this was termed "natural selection". It turned out that man had been imitating nature.

2) Fossil record-- Fossilized remains were being found in distinct layers, such that those of a certain group were always slightly different from those belonging to that same group in adjacent layers, which indicated that as time went by there had been gradual changes.

3) Rudimentary (vestigial) organs-- There were puzzling cases of organs that seemed to have no purpose, and this suggested that at one time they had been functional structures and that these now stunted organs wasted away when they were no longer necessary, like the useless wings of the kiwi, or our own appendix. The most reasonable explanation for these useless organs is that they are an inheritance from ancestors in which they were still functional.

I believe it was Arthur Koestler, with his book The Case of the Midwife Toad, who started the ongoing campaign against the obvious fact of evolution.

End of Lesson # 1
(to be discontinued)

Originally posted by Macrento

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Darwin never said that man descended from monkeys, he said that man and monkey have a common ancestor. That ancient ancestor is not to be confused with modern monkeys.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Not only are there many examples of transitional forms, but the example pointed out as nonexistent happens to be the best-known of all of these, namely, the Archaeopteryx, which had both avian and reptilian features. It had teeth, like a reptile would, but also feathers, which no reptile has.

Even before Darwin, there were already certain circumstances that hinted at the fact of evolution, and they offer overwhelming, unquestionable proof:

1) Artificial selection-- For thousands of years, livestock breeders and gardeners had been selecting certain individuals for reproduction purposes because they possessed desirable traits, and in time these traits were enhanced greatly, which suggested that in their natural state something similar could be happening, and this was termed "natural selection". It turned out that man had been imitating nature.

2) Fossil record-- Fossilized remains were being found in distinct layers, such that those of a certain group were always slightly different from those belonging to that same group in adjacent layers, which indicated that as time went by there had been gradual changes.

3) Rudimentary (vestigial) organs-- There were puzzling cases of organs that seemed to have no purpose, and this suggested that at one time they had been functional structures and that these now stunted organs wasted away when they were no longer necessary, like the useless wings of the kiwi, or our own appendix. The most reasonable explanation for these useless organs is that they are an inheritance from ancestors in which they were still functional.

I believe it was Arthur Koestler, with his book The Case of the Midwife Toad, who started the ongoing campaign against the obvious fact of evolution.

End of Lesson # 1
(to be discontinued)

Read the thread carefully!!!!...

All those statements i listed in my first post are misconceptions creationists have about evolution, not erros in evoultion in general. All those statements are completely false.

I know you were displaying a list of ideas from people who have not the inclination to study their biology carefully, not stating them as facts. All I wanted was to try and see if I could make some Creationist think things over, but that is perhaps a forlorn hope.

Ok, let me preface this by saying I both belive in Adaptation and Creationism- not mutually exclusive things here. I hate when people make this a dichotomy and make an "either...or" choice. Anyway, one of the biggest pieces of evidence for evolution is molecular. Many of the processes in humans are the exact same in other mammals, even in yeast and bacteria. This could point to basic princinples being kept in an organism as mutations occur, but this could also point to a Creator using something that works, over and over again.

I have a question about evolution. Natural selection will let desireable traits be passed one because they help a species to survive. The enviroment will effect which traits are desireable. So if we are desendants of a common ancestor of monkeys, did their location and climate allow them to survive but branch off from us? Like the species with less desireable traits doesnt necesarily have to die off right? I think we are something like 98% identical to monkeys in our genetic makeup.

I would also like to say to they see all that evolution is a theory, and not a fact, but so is creation by God.

.
1. labels are irrelevant. Facts matter. The fact is the evidence supports something like the speciation mechanism of evolution.

2. Those fit enough survive and those not fit enough don't. Statistically the most likely [but not necessarily certain] to survive are those surpass the minimal survival threshold. For most of evolution the external environment has determined what survives and what doesn't.

3. Unscientific? Excuse me, it takes available data and creates an explanation that fits with the data.

The real problem with Evolution is people inevitably load it up with human mentality such as intention, will or drive. It is organisms reproducing as they are able and the environment culling them. The changing environment is the mechanism of evolution, NOT the organisms. The organisms are blind, dumb and totally unaware of what is going on. All they do is try to reproduce. All we see are which organisms made it through the environmental obstacal course. Only with more mentally articulate species making somewhat esoteric sexual selections or murders does it have any kind of intent about it.

In a wierd sort of way what we see is a history of the environment and its changes. The organisms are pretty much idiots.

4. Which 'scientists' are you talking about? The ones from religious institutions working on Creationism and ID?

5. Recently scientists differed about which line of mammals the whales and other ocean mammals progressed from. Genetic work indicated they came from artiodactyls the fossils and teeth gathered by paleantologists indicated they came from the mesonychid condylarths. So the paleantologists went into the field to prove the geneticists wrong. But what they found confirmed the genetic logic, whales progressed from artiodactyls.

6. Why shouldn't there still be monkeys? Just because the environment isolated a population of monkeys and required that they have new attributes and became human and chimp ancestors, It still had environments that didn't change and didn't act to filter the monkeys into new forms.

7. Actually this is abiogenesis, which is a different topic than evolution. Evolution is the proposed mechanism of speciation. Abiogenesis is a much more difficult idea to comprehend. Please stay on one topic at a time. Thx.

8. Um, how much math have you studied? or Chemistry? In the rich soup of organic chemicals and amino acids it seems inevitable that a protein would be produced. Amino acids can be found even in deep space.

9. Well the 'law' runs counter to something freezing. Most of space is a few degrees above absolute zero.


10. Actually mutations are an unlikely source of genetic orginality. An inperfect DNA/RNA replication process is a much more likely source of orginal genetic code. The new proteins would be different, but pretty close to the original. For simple division reproduction organisms this would have been sufficient for them to have created a variant form. For a sexually reproductive species this would have to happen in the reproduction seed cells.

11. Is this the argument that all those little parts couldn't go together to make a complete automobile?

12. NO, but eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. The circumastantial physical points exactly one direction. ->evolution.
And NOTHING points to creationism or ID except smoke and mirrors.

13. Excuse me punkin, but all forms are transitory. And if you take of your tiara and quit gazing in awe at the mirror of your self perceived 'perfection' you will realize you [and i and all of us] are just some midpoint on a continum of organisms that at the least hopefully won't become extinct.

14. Please give me a SINGLE example of a trait that doesn't have useful qualities as a partial trait.

15. Prove? Did you 'prove' this yourself? Did you examine the outline youself to see if it seemed to add up or take this too on faith? Considering the many blanket statements with no evidence to back them up for some reason i am thinking you have little or no competency in this area.

Evolution is a function of the environment, and Not a function of biology or genetics.
If the genes that can survive are present the species survives, if they are not, the species does not survive. There is probably some genetic wandering into a broader range of forms, while the environment will support it, then the environment changes and filters/selects only those genetic lines, if any, that can persist/survive in the new environment. Other species are also a part of the environment.

Neither Biology or genetics makes classic evolution happen. The environment does. DNA is just mindless replicating protein.
Only with artificial genetic manipulation by humans [so far] makes evolution become the result of biology.

I suppose you could argue that some intelligent force is purposefully manipulating climates, geology, and other species to create desired species, but all of these things are seemingly completely explainable by principles of physics.
.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by slank]

Perhaps we can get some more discussion spurring by taking a look at my biology text book... and stuff my bio teacher has said! Have fun reading.

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Definition of a scientific theory as according to textbook: A well tested observation that unifies a broad range of observations.

according to bio teacher: NOT a guess. A hypothesis that has become so well supported that it is considered a theory.

Consider for example the THEORY of gravity (according to my teacher). Gravity is a theory, but do we consider it some random guess? Do we simply hope that we will wake up and stick the ground? No, it is based on a wide range of observations.

3.Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

Evolution is based off of several observations. Ex: fossils, plate tectonics, etc. Sicentists notice that fossils of organisms change as they view the deepest layers of rock, and go up, etc. It is very much so scientific. The question is whether the theory is correct or not, not whether it is scientific or not.

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

Naturally. Its a theory. Science is constant questioning: Why?, How? Scientists are by nature, skeptics and often doubtful.

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This is quite possibly the BIGGEST misconception of evolution EVER. Man did NOT come from monkey. Both man and monkey came from a common ancestor. Every organism in the world is interelated to some extent. They are all part of a "tree of life" One branch became monkeys, the other became humans.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

Are we talking about something that is actually considered living, like an amoeba, or the first particles? Everyone knows the whole big bang theory. As for life first being created, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey have attempted to answer this by explaning how organic compounds were created. Essentially, they simulated what we believe the early earth was like. They filled a flask with hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water to represent the atmosphere. They then sent electric sparks trhough the mixture to simulate lightening. The results were that several [B]amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.[/B]

In certain conditions, large organic molecules can form tiny bubbles called proteinoid microshperes, which contain some of the propertys of life. They have selectively permeable membranes and have simple means of storing and producing energy.

It is believed that these could have began to accquire more traits and later grow into cells.

This is why its called a theory, we dont know for sure. But we can hypothesize and try to figure out. Its the best we have.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

See above thingy about proteins and amino acids.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved

Will have to do research on this one. Havent started physics yet. Cant wait to though!

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

Another misconception.

Mutation: A mutation is any change in a sequence of DNA. Mutations can occur because of mistakes in the replication of DNA or as a result of radiation or chemicals in the environment. Mutations do not always affect an organisms pehnotype- its physical, behavioral, and biochemical characteristics. For example, a DNA codon altered from GGA to GGU will still code for the sam eamino acid, glycine.

Mutations CAN be helpful. Ex: THe moths in england. The trees are white, the moths are white. The trees become covered with soot, and the moths just HAPPEN to become black. This is a mutation, via natural selection.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

The gene pools of two populatons must become separated for them to become a new species. They must become reproductively isolated. If two populations cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring, reproductive isolation has occured. At this point, they have sperate gene pools. Reproductive isolation can occur in three ways.

Behavioral: Two different birds can interbreed, but have different mating songs, and wont.

Geographic isolation: two populations are seperated by geographic features.

Temporal isolation: reproduce at different times. therefore, cannot mate.

in these, natural selection still applies. The best new traits are kept. Over time, if they become seperated and go through natural selection they become new species. They cannot mate and produce fertile offspring.

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

This is because it takes a LONG time. It can only be viewed over lots of generations, much longer than a single lifetime. Human ourselves have only been on the earth for about 200,00 years, compared with the billions of years back.




[edit on 7-5-2005 by aggroskater]

*scroll* ... *scroll* ... *scroll some more*...
LuDaCrIs I would suggest maybe an addition to your original post... it came across to me the same as what you have repeatedly had to explain... that you were stating opinions you upheld rather than merely summarizing misconceptions. Especially when the last few lines talks about how the only reasonable conclusion is intelligent design... that's a sure fire way to start a flame war
Maybe a little clarification edit for those like myself who are reading this thread for the first time?

Hey, to launch pad who said no proof of macro, then ran off with tail between his legs when proven wrong, here is more.

www.origins.tv...

I think a land mammal becoming a sea mammal is a pretty macro thing to me.... Also, why would a dog become a cat? Would it need to be? Evolution is not a bunny into a mongoose because you want it to, it is a bunny into a mongoose if that is what is best for it's survival.(Say bunnies happy on an island, but then cobras show up and eat the bunnies, so they need to change to be able to kill the cobras, and one thing that we know that eats cobras are mongeese, so the bunnies would evolve to a type of mongoose if you will, not a mongoose, but something that moves like one and eats cobras like one) As the guy who posted the list said, this is what idiots use to "disprove" evolution. It's all BS, but hey, so is all mighty powerful invisable people that live in the clouds that smack you for eating meat on a friday.....

Also, I read the bible, it doesn't say "And The Lord made everything, plus micro evolution." No, it says god made everything, therefor, something being made not by god, again makes bible/god wrong.

I love that, they finely go fine, micro is right, but macro wrong. But the bible doesn't say that, it says anything but god blowing a load on the planet is wrong. So you can't have some evolution right, but all or none.

Also, evolution was never about man from monkeys, why christians need to go to church and learn how they are all going to hell while the rest of the world lives in reality. It is that man and APE(not monkey) have a common ancestor.(The Great Ape family is what we are a part of, the chimps, gorillas, so forth, not the Cappuchin Monkey or whatever that are part of the lower primates)

But of course all evidence is either satan or god testing the faith of the ignorant. Saw a signature on ATS, it goes like this. "I am Agnostic, for I do not pretend to know what many ignorant people are sure of." Makes sense. Also, as long as we have lists I got one that someone made up, don't know who, and now I use it to show how ignorant people of a certain faith are.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.