99.9% Of a People Who Believe In Evolution Don't Understand It.

by Space Madness 89 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Daniel1555

  Obviously you seem to be very proud to go to college. That's fine. College is great and to study evolution in detail. I agree with you that most people don't understand evolution correctly. Maybe I also don't understand it correctly. That's why I am reading books and scientific articles to at least understand it basically.

  Even scientists and your textbook writers don't understand all mechanisms how species adapt to their environment. But they do. DNA and genes are affected even by experiences a creature has. Even your genes might be affected by the experiences your grandfather had.

  Inform yourself about "Epigenetics."

  And a word to you.

  Why are you so dogmatic? We have to cope from the effects of a dogmatic religion. Be open for other views and respectful. There is no need to brag about your college education.

  And by the way. In 10 years your 'holy' textbook might be outdated.
• 

  konceptual99

  Space - you don't need me to define Natural Selection. The definition is published all over the place. Your text book should have a definition. I just think you have missed the point. What your text book says is correct - genes are not sentient and they do not make some active decision on how to change nor does the environment communicate a change. That is not how natural selection works. I would suggest that you go back to the start of your text book and look at where it describes how it does work. Right now, all you are doing is essentially quote mining just like the WTS does in it's creationist publications.
• 

  galaxie

  Evolution is a fact :...get over it and live your life.

  Best wishes
• 

  nugget

  I always take issue when a non believer in something seeks to instruct believers in what they believe or how they understand something. If you are reading textbooks then you will be aware of the need to cite sources to back statements. Therefore where is the scientific research that demonstates how most believers in evolution inderstand the process.

  Otherwise it is merely your opinion.
• 

  cofty

  Space Madness - I agreed with every word of your OP right up to your final paragraph where you got everything wrong.

  Many of us have explained the error of teleology time and again. Obviously you just weren't listening. Dawkins has written many times about this fallacy.

  Of course "natural selection" and "suvival of the fittest" exists. The problem is with the way many people understand these terms. You are 100% correct that no individual adapts to the environment. That would be Lamarkianism. Discoveries in epigenetics have shown how environment can have an effect on the way genes are expressed but that is another topic.

  You are also correct that evolution does not happen at the species level. Random mutations in the genome - specifically in the germ cells of an individual - may result in a change in the phenotype of offspring. If these changes give the creature a better chance of breeding successfully then that mutation will become more frequent in the gene pool. That is natural selection or less helpfully "survival of the fittest".

  Scientists often use shorthand when writing about these things that give the impression they are talking about teleology but they are not. It is assumed the reader understands the basics. As you rightly point out this is frequently not so.

  It is easier to say for example that, "a species of finch evolved bigger beaks IN ORDER to exploit tougher seeds".

  It is assumed the reader understands that this actually means "an individual ancestor of the current population of these finches experienced a mutation in a genetic promoter in a germ cell which caused its offspring to grow a bigger beak and that this sort of event happened a number of times over generations reuslting in a population of finches that are equipped to exploit larger seeds" - but the former is a lot quicker.

  It's good that you have begun learning about the topic. You are getting there.
• 

  Bungi Bill

  Sounds a bit like the "brother" who "brought me into the truth."

  His way of dealing with the matter of evolution was to ask a person "which theory of evolution do you believe in?" Then, when they could not answer that question, it was supposed to be a thought stopper. However, it was all an excercise in smoke and mirrors - as that opinionated, uneducated knowall twerp had no more idea of how many "theories" of evolution there were than those he was preaching to.

  Take any branch of science that you care to mention, and you will find there is still much to learn. Furthermore, this situation is unlikely to change anytime soon. However, that fact in no way means that science is all nonsense, i.e. just because there is still much to learn:

  This very much includes evolution.

  Bill.
• 

  cantleave

  "which theory of evolution do you believe in?"

  There is only one theory of evolution - simples
• 

  Apognophos

  I guess in a nutshell was Space Madness is doing is trying to beat us over the head with our misunderstanding of evolution which really only existed in his own mind. I'm sorry if you were confused by people speaking loosely about how evolution works, but this is much ado about nothing. As cofty said, even scientists sometimes state things with less than perfect precision because the point that they are making, or the audience they are speaking to, does not require laser-like precision in wording.

  I'm not sure why you have such a chip on your shoulder vis a vis this forum. Just keep on learning and stop trying to constantly make yourself out to be smarter than the rest of us.
• 

  Phizzy

  We are all rather sloppy in the way we express ourselves, Scientists included, because as Cofty says, shorthand, using expressions that people understand easily, is so easy to do.

  How often do we hear someone like David Attenborough, though not a Scientist but a person who understands Evolution and Natural Selection very well, say something like " this creature is designed to .......".

  It is not of course a "creature" , nor is it "designed", in the sense that a Creationist would use those words, but I bet 99.9% of David's viewers know just what he means.
• 

  snare&racket

  SPACE MADNESS

  These things are well understood, why not open a textbook.

  Random mutations happen millions and millions of times a day. In a culture of bacteria, the antibiotic enviroment is constantly testing the mutations, when one is successful such as adjusting the cell wall so that the antibiotic can no longer access the bacteria, that is now a resistant bacterium that will replicate and dominate more than the others. That new wall may have come about through billions of mutations through millions of generations of bacteria, that may in realtime be 8 years. The pressure or 'thinking' as you called it, quite incorrectly, is nothing more than the USE of antibiotics. By using them we change the enviroment, we alter natural selection.

  Lets say we invent a new antibiotic called 'abx x' and we introduce it to a population, the bacteria are still,going about their normal replication and random mutations, now lets say after 11 years some bacteria develop a thixker cell wall and the drug stops working, these bacteria will now dominate that gene pool and become the norm for that species of bacteria, in the geographical area that the drug 'abx x' is being used. Now lets say the drug was never invented, and at year 11 the same bacteria developed that thick wall, it has no advantage and the gene does not dominate the species as it is of no use.

  As you can see there is no thought process or intelligence at all.

  No offence but you are mistaking your ignorance, assuming that others don't know these things either. They have long been understood. Hence my constant reccomendations of books. You could have easily known this stuff a LONG time ago.

  Stop being lazy and open a textbook. The fact that you are talking about bacteria and dna not having a means to think means you have no idea how evolution works. YES we however do, hence it is in tne textbooks, hence you can do the tests yourself.

  I work in a hospital, everyone with a confirmed bacterial sepsis gets blood cultures. we find the species of bacteria and we test it for antibiotic resistance. Why because bacterial species have differenct sensitivities depending on the local antibiotics prescribed. So in North Wales the GP's use a lot of Amoxicillin as it is cheap. When someone comes into the hospital very unwell and we have to tackle that bacteria, most of the bacteria in that region of wales was resistant to Amoxicillin. The same evolution and mechanism of testing sensitivity/eesistance applies to every region now.

  Drug comapnies have stopped investing in antibiotics because it takes 7 years to get a drug from design to the streets due to all the testing. Because bacteria are evolving so quickly, a drug developed now, is no good in ten years time so it is no longer financially viable to create new antibiotics. It is about to be a BIG problem. So your theory that they were always resistant is nonsense. I see them develop and change sensitivities within my job. I see in real time how prescribing alters bacterial resistance.

  Show some humility and pick up a book.....