Common Misconceptions Re: Evolution

by cantleave 83 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  wobble

  What has been pointed out to Creationists of various hues, Ad Nauseum, is the common usage of the word theory, as in "I have a theory that women make better drivers than men", is not the usage the word Theory has in Science.

  Some of this ignorance as to its meaning seems to spill over in to threads on here from time to time. Prof. Dawkins proposed in one of his books that the word

  "Theorem" be borrowed from mathematics, as it conveys the idea of what a scientific Theory actually is a lot better, but the idea never caught on.

  So many people argue from a position of ignorance, they would be better employed in studying what Evolution Science really is than arguing about a subject they know so little of.

  I should know. Caedes set me straight about my ignorance when I first joined this site, so, I went off and educated myself.
• 

  james_woods

  We cannot simulate a supernova in a laboratory expirement either, but we can observe one and prove that the observation meets certain theories about the end of life for certain stars.

  Point being that evidence of evolution is all around us - we just have to observe the evidence and match it to the theory.

  BTW - I wonder how the JWs and other evolutionary deniers are going to handle the evidence that DNA from both Neanderthal and Denisovan hominids has been sequenced and small percentages are repeated in modern human DNA?
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  I'm not sure what you mean by "we can't prove the mechanism for those changes," PSac. Evolution IS the mechanism; it is genetic change that persists across a population across time resulting in a species that is different enough from the earlier observed species that they can no longer inter-breed. (at least that's what I think speciation is defined as - someone correct me if there's something I missed there)

  By the way, the article mentions "survival" a lot but for genes to be passed on, "surviving" means "enough individuals surviving long enough to successfully produce a population of offspring." It doesn't just mean one mutated specimen living a long long time.
• 

  PSacramento

  Point being that evidence of evolution is all around us - we just have to observe the evidence and match it to the theory.

  Agreed.

  I'm not sure what you mean by "we can't prove the mechanism for those changes," PSac. Evolution IS the mechanism; it is genetic change that persists across a population across time resulting in a species that is different enough from the earlier observed species that they can no longer inter-breed. (at least that's what I think speciation is defined as - someone correct me if there's something I missed there)

  Evolution is the name we give to the process, but the mechanisim is what drives it and while we have a few theories such as natural selection and survival of the fittest, but I don't think we can PROVE that they are what drives evolution, can we?
• 

  james_woods

  Evolution is the name we give to the process, but the mechanisim is what drives it and while we have a few theories such as natural selection and survival of the fittest, but I don't think we can PROVE that they are what drives evolution, can we?

  How much proof do we need?

  Isn't it obvious that if certain species are less favorably adapted to an environment, and they die out - and other species manage to survive - that this is precisely a "survival of the fittest"?
• 

  zoiks

  Hi Psac!

  the mechanisim is what drives it and while we have a few theories such as natural selection and survival of the fittest, but I don't think we can PROVE that they are what drives evolution, can we?

  Evolution is simply this: the change in genetic makeup of a population over time.

  This happens all the time with variations and errors in the copying of DNA - just ask a surgeon if the organs inside people are always the same shape, size, and in the same place. Or just look at humans or any other species. Variation is the key. The chief 'mechanisms', as you say, are mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection acting upon the raw genetic material (living beings). These are all things that have been observed.
• 

  unshackled

  Richard Lenski has observed evolution in the lab for 20+ years now with his E. Coli experimentation. Starting with 12 nearly identical bacterias they've observed a wide array of genetic changes. Including one stand-out adaption being able to grow on citric acid. They have now observed over 50,000 generations. It's quite fascinating.....Dawkins explains it at length in The Greatest Show on Earth. Though I had to read that part twice.
• 

  zoiks

  A shiny Newton apple for zoiks

  Hey, where did that apple come from? **rubs sore head and looks suspiciously at the sky**

  How ya doin', Shacks?
• 

  PSacramento

  Isn't it obvious that if certain species are less favorably adapted to an environment, and they die out - and other species manage to survive - that this is precisely a "survival of the fittest"?

  Agreed, but what makes one species able to survive when the other doesn't?

  Evolution is simply this: the change in genetic makeup of a population over time.

  Agreed.

  The chief 'mechanisms', as you say, are mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection acting upon the raw genetic material (living beings). These are all things that have been observed.

  And the cause of all those? and WHY we can adapt? where does that come from?

  Dawkins explains it at length in The Greatest Show on Earth.

  Perhaps his best book.

  I enjoyed reading Dawkins when he was simply an evolutionary biologist.
• 

  Paulapollos

  Psac,

  what do you mean by this?

  "Evolution is the name we give to the process, but the mechanisim is what drives it and while we have a few theories such as natural selection and survival of the fittest, but I don't think we can PROVE that they are what drives evolution, can we?"

  Natural selection is the key driver of evolution, It is clearly demonstrated in a number of areas - gene selection, population change, genetic diversity, and so forth. There are, or have been, controversies between scientists such as Gould and Dawkins regarding whether other mechanisms play a larger role, such as species selection vs gene selection, and other discussions regarding puncuated equilbrium and so forth, but frankly, there is no scientific dispute as to whether natural selection is a fact, and a key driver of evolution.

  Also, Psac, what does this mean? "There is no way to demonstrate that MAN, for example evolved from Species A and dublicate it in a laboratory experiement." There IS a way to show that man evolved from "Species A", and it is called evolutionary genetics. We have already clearly demonstrated the genetic development of man and chimpanzees from a common ancestor. Of course, we can't replicate it in a lab - because of various other scientific difficulties with producing living organisms, not because we don't have it clearly demonstrated.

  PP