10 Misconceptions About Evolution

[dlamberth]

I thought I'd throw this out there because it's been a little dry around here.

10 Misconceptions About Evolution

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought I'd throw this out there because it's been a little dry around here.

10 Misconceptions About Evolution

How many debates did evolutionists lose before they were able to solidify these ten beliefs?

 

[Shemjaza]

How many debates did evolutionists lose before they were able to solidify these ten beliefs?

It's difficult to win debates with those who don't argue honestly or in good faith.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How many debates did evolutionists lose before they were able to solidify these ten beliefs?

It's hilarious that you think 'evolutionists' lost debates before they realized "Wow. These people keep getting these basic facts about evolution wrong." Hilarious and so telling.

 

[Ophiolite]

I thought I'd throw this out there because it's been a little dry around here.

10 Misconceptions About Evolution

Since the responses to this from creationists is likely - based upon recent experience - to be underwhelming, and to give evolutionists something to get there teeth into, I thought I might support one or more of these alleged misconceptions. I've chosen to start with number 3.

3. Evolution explains the origin of life (or it’s supposed to)
I am not throwing my wholehearted support behind this misconception. Rather, I would argue that the dismissal (some might say "knee jerk dismissal) of the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis is misleading, presumptuous and manipulative.

The pathway from simple organic molecules towards a self replicating system capable of Darwinian evolution is continuous and uninterrupted. Where we decide abiogenesis gave way to evolution is an artificial, largely arbritary, human construct - an example of classification, not an inherent feature of nature.
Mechanisms important to one may be present in the other. For example, the emergence and survival of more complex molecules from the pre-biotic soup is a case of survival of the fittest. Since we do not know how abiogenesis occurred it is presumptuous to believe that there are not other particulars in common.
Rejecting discussion of abiogenesis, as being irrelevant to evolution is really just a cheap, rhetorical way of making the effort to explain the differences between the two, while acknowledging the similarities.

 

[Tuur]

I thought I'd throw this out there because it's been a little dry around here.

10 Misconceptions About Evolution

Okay, I read them, and immediately disagreed with some. Before we go any further, I'd like to recommend a book that covers the subject, Mapping the Origins Debate by Gerald Rau. It covers the various theories on the origin and development of life, and is a good overview about what each theory is and isn't.

Being cynical, could have all sorts of infuriating fun with these 10 misconceptions. When I read the first one and a stained glass image I did of Charles Darwin comes to mind as I agree "Yep, it's not just a theory," you know my comments about them would not be constructive. So, in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."

 

[AV1611VET]

It's difficult to win debates with those who don't argue honestly or in good faith.

Then why change?

What made evolutionists separate evolution from abiogenesis in the first place?

Was it because "those who don't argue honestly or in good faith" wanted it demonstrated in a lab?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's hilarious that you think 'evolutionists' lost debates before they realized "Wow. These people keep getting these basic facts about evolution wrong." Hilarious and so telling.

Can't answer with a number?

 

[Shemjaza]

Then why change?

People love to win and people feel like debates demonstrate truth... they don't.

I've seen Creationists win many debates, but I've never seen them present coherent scientific evidence or arguments for their position.

(Theologically I suspect they are on much stronger ground, but I'm nether a theologian or even a Christian, so that's probably not my call).

What made evolutionists separate evolution from abiogenesis in the first place?

They never were connected... they work on different principles.

Abiogenesis remains pretty mysterious in the details... but it's also pretty irrelevant to the Creation/Evolution debate.

If a different type of Creationist existed who thought the created kinds were on the Order level and then micro evolved from there you would disagree with them as much as you do with me.

Was it because "those who don't argue honestly or in good faith" wanted it demonstrated in a lab?

Professional Creationists repeatedly lie about the details, purpose and results of abiogenesis research and about how it relates to evolutionary theory and the conviction of atheists.

 

[BCP1928]

Then why change?

What made evolutionists separate evolution from abiogenesis in the first place?

Because it is thought to involve different biochemical process than evolution and may require different method of investigation. As Ophiolite pointed out, the line between the two may not be a hard one, just as the line between non-life and life is not a hard one, but a transition. Where you draw the line is arbitrary.

Was it because "those who don't argue honestly or in good faith" wanted it demonstrated in a lab?

No, it doesn't matter whether creationists want it "demonstrated in a lab" or not, as creationists themselves don't have anything that can be demonstrated in a lab, thus are demanding it of science dishonestly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it is thought to involve different biochemical process than evolution and may require different method of investigation. As Ophiolite pointed out, the line between the two may not be a hard one, just as the linebetween non-life and life is not a hard one, but a transition. Where you draw the line is arbitrary.

But it's how many times have they "drawn the line" that I'm asking for.

How many times have creationists forced evolutionists back to their drawing boards?

No, it doesn't matter whether creationists want it "demonstrated in a lab" or not, as creationists themselves don't have anything that can be demonstrated in a lab,

And we creationists admit that.

And I say they don't have anything that can be demonstrated in a lab because it never existed.

... thus are demanding it of science dishonestly.

I disagree.

If science wants to claim something happened in the past, while at the same time admitting that it can't be demonstrated in a lab or reproduced or whatever, then I contend they are walking by faith -- not by sight.

I'll gladly admit abiogenesis cannot be demonstrated in a lab, because I believe something else happened instead.

And the fact that I can't demonstrate what that something else is just solidifies my point that science can take a hike.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What made evolutionists separate evolution from abiogenesis in the first place?

That didn't happen. Pop quiz:

The main title of Darwin's famous book presenting the theory of evolution is "On the Origin of ______"

A) Alexandria
B) Life
C) Species
D) None of the Above

 

[BCP1928]

But it's how many times have they "drawn the line" that I'm asking for.

How many times have creationists forced evolutionists back to their drawing boards?

None. Finding out what happened between non-life and the present biosphere is a big, complex task which can usefully be divided up between different kinds of scientists. It's a working division, not an ontological one.

And we creationists admit that.

And I say they don't have anything that can be demonstrated in a lab because it never existed.

You can say what you like. But because your opinion is offered without evidence science is free to ignore it.

I disagree.

If science wants to claim something happened in the past, while at the same time admitting that it can't be demonstrated in a lab or reproduced or whatever, then I contend they are walking by faith -- not by sight.

Up until now, science has only said what may have happened, so the problem does not arise.

I'll gladly admit abiogenesis cannot be demonstrated in a lab, because I believe something else happened instead.

And the fact that I can't demonstrate what that something else is just solidifies my point that science can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Up until now, science has only said what may have happened, so the problem does not arise.

So science charges students thousands and thousands of dollars to teach students what "may have happened"?

Academia writes books, gives out diplomas, certificates, and Nobel prizes for things that "may have happened"?

Darwin is buried in a prominent grave site because he wrote about something that "may have happened"?

 

[BCP1928]

So science charges students thousands and thousands of dollars to teach students what "may have happened"?

Academia writes books, gives out diplomas, certificates, and Nobel prizes for things that "may have happened"?

Darwin is buried in a prominent grave site because he wrote about something that "may have happened"?

No. Science does all those things to improve and refine our understanding of what may have happened, to reduce the uncertainty.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can't answer with a number?

There is no number because your statement is incorrect.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So science charges students thousands and thousands of dollars to teach students what "may have happened"?

Academia writes books, gives out diplomas, certificates, and Nobel prizes for things that "may have happened"?

Darwin is buried in a prominent grave site because he wrote about something that "may have happened"?

It's called intellectual honesty, AV. Scientists know they have evidence that strongly points to this thing or that thing, but it's not 100%. It might get overturned one day or might get strengthened.
Thus, they do not wholeheartedly commit to something saying "This is definitely, definitively, absolutely, positively what happened!". Because to do so would be intellectually dishonest.

But you don't care. You never have and never will.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's called intellectual honesty, AV.

It's called the difference between getting a passing grade and failing.

Scientists know they have evidence that strongly points to this thing or that thing, but it's not 100%. It might get overturned one day or might get strengthened.

What happens in the meantime though?

Thus, they do not wholeheartedly commit to something saying "This is definitely, definitively, absolutely, positively what happened!".

True.

They'll just tell you how to answer the questions on the final; and you'd better get it right.

Because to do so would be intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual honesty can lead to some dire consequences.

But you don't care. You never have and never will.

Krista McAuliffe relied on intellectual honesty, and look where it got her.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's called the difference between getting a passing grade and failing.

Not really, since scientific theories aren't a pass/fail.

What happens in the meantime though?

Further study and refinement of knowledge.

True.

They'll just tell you how to answer the questions on the final; and you'd better get it right.

... that's how all schools work (sadly).

Intellectual honesty can lead to some dire consequences.

Krista McAuliffe relied on intellectual honesty, and look where it got her.

I can't sync these two posts together because believe it or not, AV; you are actually right, and I'm also right as well. The history of thalidomide and it's connection to pushing by CORPORATIONS and BUSINESSES over science is well documented, known and has been explained to you multiple times.

But keep flogging that dead horse, or rather, to use an analogy you once used with be, keep being that broken record, no matter how wrong and vulture-like it makes you.

 

[sfs]

I thought I'd throw this out there because it's been a little dry around here.

10 Misconceptions About Evolution

A theory is an explanatory paradigm that has stood the test of theoretical coherence and—most important—empirical validation.

Yeah, that's a claim that widely repeated and is empirically false. There is no universal usage for the word 'theory' in science. Common usage would probably include the first part of the claim, about coherence (both internal coherence and coherence with existing data), but there is no requirement that a proposed theory be empirically validated. That's why the Steady State and the Big Bang theories were competing theories to explain the same data.

Other than that, the statements about the 10 misconceptions seem pretty solid.