Evolution: The common misconceptions.

[The3rdEye]

*snip* But evolution seems to be a tricky one. Indeed there is more evidence for evolution then there is for Gravity!*snip*

First, this is going to inevitably boil down to a flame war.

Second, I can drop any object from a height and assuming it's not a balloon filled with helium or some such, it will fall. Anyone can do the same thing and get the same result. We can both agree that when you drop something, it falls and call that effect gravity. I cannot dig up the skull of a 4 billion year old specimen of man and say "Look at the familial resemblance.

Yes I believe in evolution. Do I debate with someone when they start discussing creationism, or use it as a point of authority in an argument? No, because there is no possibility of "convincing" them, only irritating them (and more importantly me). Only if creationism is their only supporting argument will I ask them to provide more secular evidence, but if in any event they're just being a little shit about it I'll throw some vague references to Lilith at them and that usually stops them dead anyway.

Interesting thread in any event, points for the archaeopteryx.



Quick Add-on (From a religious source no less, *Le-Gasp*!)

The Buddha also compared the question of the origin of life - as well as many other metaphysical questions - to the parable of the poison arrow: a man is shot with a poison arrow, but before the doctor pulls it out, he wants to know who shot it (arguing the existence of God), where the arrow came from (where the universe and/or God came from) why that person shot it (why God created the universe), etc. If the man keeps asking these questions before the arrow is pulled out, the Buddha reasoned, he will die before he gets the answers.

So pursue knowledge for the sake of knowing, not for the sake of meaning.

 

[Flour]

Anyway, love the crocoduck, what's the picture below it?

You could have(and probably already have) right-clicked the picture and checked the properties which would have produced a link. This is the wikipedia result of the name found in that link. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx]

On-Topic: I remember reading this somewhere else. But with slightly more links and no images.
Oh well, while it's worth reading to learn something, I would advise against arguing with idiots creationists since they'll only drag you down to their level until you give up and they "win".

 

[The Maddest March Hare]

I totally agree with the OP. I have tried to explain to some of the Fundamentalist Christians in my year that Evolution doesn't in any way have to disprove God or religion, nor is it a threat to their beliefs. It doesn't rule out a creator being, it just explains the changes that are evident in all creatures between then and now.

Sadly, people like Richard Dawkins use it as a weapon against religion.

I'm agnostic, and think that in many cases religion works better than atheism. At least most religions teach us to respect humanity, rather than being such a complete and utter dullard and all round prick. Once again I point at Richard Dawkins as a prime example.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

I'll admi i didn't read it all, but thanks for the new avatar! Alligator duck is brilliant.

 

[Cpt. Red]

(snip) saying that evolution caused the holocaust or just plain making things up! (and even more snipping)

One could argue that because humans became like this thanks to evolution then its indirectly a cause of the holocaust.

 

[Nmil-ek]

You seem smart, far smarter than me but on a note of pure intrest could I ask why you take an agnostic stance to the issue? To me it seems like a binary position and I'm pretty firm in my Atheism there is a god or there is not I canot possibly see any room for a median there. And I genuinely dont buy the we may never know so why try argument and I have heard some utterly rediculous ones at that "I can both beleive in god and not beleive"

 

[Cargando]

Wonderfully well put, I have been ruminating on this rather a lot lately. Hold on, I found a very well-put article on this a while ago, give me a minute...

EDIT: Ah yes, here it is: http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140/output/print
Make of it what you will.

 

[Latinidiot]

interesting.
you made what has been circling inmy head since i was twelve in one cohesive text, instead of loose fragments.
thank you

 

[Piecewise]

You seem smart, far smarter than me but on a note of pure intrest could I ask why you take an agnostic stance to the issue? To me it seems like a binary position and I'm pretty firm in my Atheism there is a god or there is not I canot possibly see any room for a median there. And I genuinely dont buy the we may never know so why try argument and I have heard some utterly rediculous ones at that "I can both beleive in god and not beleive"

My agnosticism perhaps needs some qualification eh? I, as a person, admit that my knowledge is limited to what I may perceive from my surroundings and the effects of processes. As such I am forced to admit that my knowledge of whether or not a god exists is limited to negative evidence, that is to say that I have no evidence to say that any sort of divinity exists while I do have evidence to support a naturalistic view. Because it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, I am forced to admit that I can not disprove god and as such that it would be illogical to flat out claim that there is no such thing as a higher power.

Because of this You could lump me in with either weak atheists (those who say that gods existence is unlikely, unproven and over all live their lives as though there is no god while never expressly stating that it is an impossibility) or agnosticism, since agnosticism is not mutually exclusive. The thing that defines me as being Agnostic is that I say that it will forever be impossible to prove god's existence either way.

Its also important to important to differentiate between strong and weak atheism, as one states that there is no god, while the other states that there is no current evidence for god. Strong atheism has plenty of proof going for it, but it still makes a leap of faith.

 

[Cakes]

Durrr, but if we come from apes, why are there still apes?!?

Because we are just one branch of their evolution.

Evolution doesn't happen in one huge block - every ape on Earth didn't suddenly have a hairless child in the space of a year.

What happened was a single hairless ape passed the hairless genes onto a few ordinary apes, who had hairless children, and from that one hairless child, the amount of hairless apes grew and grew.

But there are still the hairy apes that mate with the hairy apes, and these were just fine at surviving, so the genetic divide grew and grew, until the hairless apes no longer would/could mate with the hairy apes, leaving the hairy apes on their own.

Seriously, actually study evolution before bashing it.

Gee whiz, thanks for the lesson! I was really confused. I really thought that was how evolution worked, and thought I'd better indicate that with an obvious "durrr" beforehand, just to make it clear that in no way was I mocking the people who actually think like that. No sir, no mockery there! Sarcasm? What's that mean?

[small]Yeah, I understand sarcasm can sometimes be hard to get across on the internet. I thought it was pretty obvious, but hey, we all make mistakes.[/small]

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Nice, rational, non-offensive way of putting it. Congrats.
I do wish crocoducks did exist now, they're so cute and I bet they'd make great pets. Where is that pic from anyway?

 

[ThreeWords]

Well said, I approve muchly.

Do you mind if I copy some or all of this post if i need to disprove someone's stupidity wilful ignorance?

 

[Cakes]

[sub]For future reference, /sarcasm is the best way.[/sub]

I just thought the outrageous stupidity of it, coupled with a bizarre *I had a frontal lobotomy* noise would make it obvious enough. /sarcasm just seems like a slap in the face. It's like putting *pun intended* after a remark.

 

[Ezekel]

[sub]For future reference, /sarcasm is the best way.[/sub]

I just thought the outrageous stupidity of it, coupled with a bizarre *I had a frontal lobotomy* noise would make it obvious enough. /sarcasm just seems like a slap in the face. It's like putting *pun intended* after a remark.

Outrageous stupidity is pretty common on the internet. Sarcasm is often delivered with a different tone of voice or based on the personality of the person. Since both those things do not apply to forum posts sometimes is better to air on the side of caution.

 

[Jark212]

This post does not apply to all Religious Fundamentalists

Spoiler: troll content

 

[GrinningManiac]

GODDAMN YOU evolution! Why can I not have my beloved baby Cluck-odile?

 

[Piecewise]

[sub]For future reference, /sarcasm is the best way.[/sub]

I just thought the outrageous stupidity of it, coupled with a bizarre *I had a frontal lobotomy* noise would make it obvious enough. /sarcasm just seems like a slap in the face. It's like putting *pun intended* after a remark.

Outrageous stupidity is pretty common on the internet. Sarcasm is often delivered with a different tone of voice or based on the personality of the person. Since both those things do not apply to forum posts sometimes is better to air on the side of caution.

This is why Poe's law exists

Nice, rational, non-offensive way of putting it. Congrats.
I do wish crocoducks did exist now, they're so cute and I bet they'd make great pets. Where is that pic from anyway?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNTGmoTb8sw
Good old Kirk and his friend ray. Ever heard of the "atheist nightmare"? Its a video which shows how the banana is apperently perfectly made for humans and how that proves god is real. He fails to mention that humans have been genetically altering bananas for hundreds of years through selective breeding and that the original banana was a leathery, seed filled abomination barely fit to eat.

Well said, I approve muchly.

Do you mind if I copy some or all of this post if i need to disprove someone's stupidity wilful ignorance?

Sure, go ahead.

 

[Naheal]

"In the beginning, God created heaven and earth."

Nothing in that says exactly how it was done, nor how long it took. Sure we say that it took six days, with God resting on the seventh, but the number seven usually symbolic rather than literal. Let religion/spirituality deal with the spiritual aspect and science deal with the physical.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Irreducible complexity is usually brought up with ID more then evolution, but i know it's a common "problem" the have. The best way to shut them up (if they're claiming that ID is a scientific theory) is to ask them for a test to prove ID. ID has no proof and is wholly founded as nothing more then a series of attacks on evolution. That and the wedge document basically proves that ID was created to do nothing more then force religion back into schools.

Intelligent design sounds very good and plausable, right up until the point where you realise that whatever designed humans can't have been very intelligent. Also, I disagree with you on transitionals. I don't think transitionals exist simply because I don't really think that species exist. The difference between a pelycosaur and a human is just a few meteorite impacts, the odd ice age, some warm spells, and shed-loads of time.

However, the perfection and beauty of nature does lead many to conclude that there is far more too it than just a random chemical reaction which hasn't finished its process yet, that includes myself.

EDIT: I am curious. I understand how you would get pissed when you see creationists trying to get their stuff into science text books, but what about the people who just quietly believe that stuff?