General Misconceptions about evolutionary theory:
Misconception 1: Evolution is telelogical.
I notice people ask "well why hasn't X evolved intlligence if evolution is true" etc.
That whole line of reasoning presupposes that the evolutionary process is teleological, aimned at some sort of perfection. It is not, evolution just happens when a population of organisms is pressured. If they are not, there is no evolution. I.E. organisms don't change until it is absolutely necessary, if they can get along well as shapeless blobs they will stay shapeless blobs forever.
Misconception 2: Darwinism is based on saltation i.e. big mutations.
This error is made by people who ask "well how come a lizard never gives birth to a bird"? Or where is THE transitional form? (where THE transitional form, is supposed to be some sort of evolutionary freak.) Or when people argue, well how did the first "mutant" find a mate? I also think that many have large-saltation type mutations in mind when they speak of macroevolution.
All this preuposses that Darwinism demands huge mutations, lets say between a reptile and bird. That some day one reptile all of a sudden gives birth to a half-reptile/half-bird creature. That is not what Darwinists are saying happened at all. Large mutations, or saltations, are not a strong factor in modern day evolutionary theory. Why? Because evolutionary scietists see the same problem with saltationist theories that creationists do. Salations when they do occur, are more likely to lead to detriments then advantages. Since these changes are big, detriments at this level are also very lethal. Also finding a mate for a mutant of this type may be difficult. In the world of saltations for every chance there is to get something right, there is an almost infinitely higer chance ofscrewing something up.
That's why Darwinists are gradualists. They believe that small mutations are the driving force behind evolutionary theory. Why? Because the smaller a mutation is the more likely it is to be beneficial. To use an analogy of Richard Dawkins, suppose you want to get a clearer view of something in a microscope. You make little changes, even if untrained. Why? Because if you make a big change (zoom in closer of farther) you are very likely gonna mess it up. However if you only zoom in our out a bit, the chances of getting a clearer or more distorted view are 50/50. Evolution thus works like this, an organism gets a small change in some aspect essential for survival, perhaps it runs a little faster do to a slightly longer leg, due to this mutation the organism now has a higher chance of reproducing spreading this mutation among other orgainisms of its species. Slowly but surely all of the same organisms begin to have slightly longer legs. Then maybe even longer legs, as more small-mutations are made increasing leg length (once the leg is longer, the chances now of getting a leg slightly longer then the now longer leg increases). These small scale mutations accumulate over millions of years to create whole new groups of species.
Dog breeding illustrates this. When man domesticated some wolves, i.e. the first dogs, man didn't breed two wolves and get a poodle off the bat. Man had to accumulate small changes over many generations to get a poodle. The genes for poodles were already there, theoretically two wolves could have given birth to a poodle right off the bat, the chances of that though were so small that gradual change seemned the only viable alternative.
Misconception 3: Evolution is all about chance.
Buzz. Not at all. There is some chance factor involved as mutations are not completely guided, but its not ALL chance. First off mutations tend to be small, for the reasons mentioned above. Secondly certain parts of animals, key parts (i.e. lungs), tend to not mutate at all or mutate in very,very small degrees.Lastly, the norm of a given species tends to dictate what changes will be made; for example a species who has 5 foot long legs is more likely to either have legs 1 inch smaller or larger in mutations; and is less likely to have a leg mutation that makes the leg 2 feet long.
Chance is also ruled out via accumulation through natural selection. Certain variations survive to pass on their genes, while other do not. Over generations this weeding tends to lead species in a certain direction. In my above examples, toward increased speed and leg size.
General misconceptions about Science:
Misconception 1: For something to be scientific it has to be directly observed.
This is very wrong. Many scientific concepts are not directly observable like atoms,light and gravity.
This whole notion is based on positivist epistemolgy, which fail utterly. As positivism fails to verify the existence of such basic things as houses and universities.
This quote very much illustrates the need for theories and inference in science:
Anyone who would reduce science to the most direct observations would basically reduce all of geology to pebble counting. Such reduction would make science useless as a discipline of both understanding and technological advance.
</SPAN>
Misconception 2: To be scientific a given event or theory underlying must be repeatable.
Many things in science are not repeatable in that sense, super novas for example. Historical incidents. Dinosaurs; until rl Jurassic Park. That doesn't mean these things are not included in science. It also means that we cannot apply modern day theories based on direct ibservation,inference and deuction on these incidents to explain them.
For example, to explain how the Black Plague spread, we use modern theories about germs and how they are they can be transmitted. We were not there during the black plague. So given the above miscocneption, such theorizing should be considered a sort of "a priori" metaphysical assumption, just as valid as lets say, the idea that the Plague was caused by and spread by demons. That's nonsense though and everyone knows it, why? Because what we know sheds light on past events and tells us what is likely and what is superlfuous. We know that, given our knowledge of germs, the demon explanation is unlikely, i.e. superfluous, and the rats with germs explanation is far more scietific. I.E. Principles of evidence, like Occam's Razor, allows one to explain past events based on what can be seen today. Biologists do this when explaining past events in evolutionary light, we know that animals can evolve, hence it makes sense to suppose that animals in the past likewise evolved and this evolutionary change added up. This explanation has been confirmned many times.
Compare this to the alternative, for which no known mechanisms exist and for which many things seem disconfirming. This adds up to make creationist explanations superfluous and hence, unlikely compared to evolutionary theory.
These are but some of the most popular misconceptions I see on this forum. Others should feel more then free to point this out.
General Misconceptions about evolutionary theory:
Misconception 1: Evolution is telelogical.
I notice people ask "well why hasn't X evolved intlligence if evolution is true" etc.
That whole line of reasoning presupposes that the evolutionary process is teleological, aimned at some sort of perfection. It is not, evolution just happens when a population of organisms is pressured. If they are not, there is no evolution. I.E. organisms don't change until it is absolutely necessary, if they can get along well as shapeless blobs they will stay shapeless blobs forever.
Misconception 2: Darwinism is based on saltation i.e. big mutations.
This error is made by people who ask "well how come a lizard never gives birth to a bird"? Or where is THE transitional form? (where THE transitional form, is supposed to be some sort of evolutionary freak.) Or when people argue, well how did the first "mutant" find a mate? I also think that many have large-saltation type mutations in mind when they speak of macroevolution.
All this preuposses that Darwinism demands huge mutations, lets say between a reptile and bird. That some day one reptile all of a sudden gives birth to a half-reptile/half-bird creature. That is not what Darwinists are saying happened at all. Large mutations, or saltations, are not a strong factor in modern day evolutionary theory. Why? Because evolutionary scietists see the same problem with saltationist theories that creationists do. Salations when they do occur, are more likely to lead to detriments then advantages. Since these changes are big, detriments at this level are also very lethal. Also finding a mate for a mutant of this type may be difficult. In the world of saltations for every chance there is to get something right, there is an almost infinitely higer chance ofscrewing something up.
That's why Darwinists are gradualists. They believe that small mutations are the driving force behind evolutionary theory. Why? Because the smaller a mutation is the more likely it is to be beneficial. To use an analogy of Richard Dawkins, suppose you want to get a clearer view of something in a microscope. You make little changes, even if untrained. Why? Because if you make a big change (zoom in closer of farther) you are very likely gonna mess it up. However if you only zoom in our out a bit, the chances of getting a clearer or more distorted view are 50/50. Evolution thus works like this, an organism gets a small change in some aspect essential for survival, perhaps it runs a little faster do to a slightly longer leg, due to this mutation the organism now has a higher chance of reproducing spreading this mutation among other orgainisms of its species. Slowly but surely all of the same organisms begin to have slightly longer legs. Then maybe even longer legs, as more small-mutations are made increasing leg length (once the leg is longer, the chances now of getting a leg slightly longer then the now longer leg increases). These small scale mutations accumulate over millions of years to create whole new groups of species.
Dog breeding illustrates this. When man domesticated some wolves, i.e. the first dogs, man didn't breed two wolves and get a poodle off the bat. Man had to accumulate small changes over many generations to get a poodle. The genes for poodles were already there, theoretically two wolves could have given birth to a poodle right off the bat, the chances of that though were so small that gradual change seemned the only viable alternative.
Misconception 3: Evolution is all about chance.
Buzz. Not at all. There is some chance factor involved as mutations are not completely guided, but its not ALL chance. First off mutations tend to be small, for the reasons mentioned above. Secondly certain parts of animals, key parts (i.e. lungs), tend to not mutate at all or mutate in very,very small degrees.Lastly, the norm of a given species tends to dictate what changes will be made; for example a species who has 5 foot long legs is more likely to either have legs 1 inch smaller or larger in mutations; and is less likely to have a leg mutation that makes the leg 2 feet long.
Chance is also ruled out via accumulation through natural selection. Certain variations survive to pass on their genes, while other do not. Over generations this weeding tends to lead species in a certain direction. In my above examples, toward increased speed and leg size.
General misconceptions about Science:
Misconception 1: For something to be scientific it has to be directly observed.
This is very wrong. Many scientific concepts are not directly observable like atoms,light and gravity.
This whole notion is based on positivist epistemolgy, which fail utterly. As positivism fails to verify the existence of such basic things as houses and universities.
This quote very much illustrates the need for theories and inference in science:
Anyone who would reduce science to the most direct observations would basically reduce all of geology to pebble counting. Such reduction would make science useless as a discipline of both understanding and technological advance.
</SPAN>
Misconception 2: To be scientific a given event or theory underlying must be repeatable.
Many things in science are not repeatable in that sense, super novas for example. Historical incidents. Dinosaurs; until rl Jurassic Park. That doesn't mean these things are not included in science. It also means that we cannot apply modern day theories based on direct ibservation,inference and deuction on these incidents to explain them.
For example, to explain how the Black Plague spread, we use modern theories about germs and how they are they can be transmitted. We were not there during the black plague. So given the above miscocneption, such theorizing should be considered a sort of "a priori" metaphysical assumption, just as valid as lets say, the idea that the Plague was caused by and spread by demons. That's nonsense though and everyone knows it, why? Because what we know sheds light on past events and tells us what is likely and what is superlfuous. We know that, given our knowledge of germs, the demon explanation is unlikely, i.e. superfluous, and the rats with germs explanation is far more scietific. I.E. Principles of evidence, like Occam's Razor, allows one to explain past events based on what can be seen today. Biologists do this when explaining past events in evolutionary light, we know that animals can evolve, hence it makes sense to suppose that animals in the past likewise evolved and this evolutionary change added up. This explanation has been confirmned many times.
Compare this to the alternative, for which no known mechanisms exist and for which many things seem disconfirming. This adds up to make creationist explanations superfluous and hence, unlikely compared to evolutionary theory.
These are but some of the most popular misconceptions I see on this forum. Others should feel more then free to point this out.