Evolution Misconceptions

Post Reply New Topic

Here's a pretty good site for reading up on lots of common misconceptions on evolution.

(I didn't read them all, but thought it was pretty good for ones i did)


http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif ... onceptions

Does this clear anything up?

i should add... i didn't read any of the myths from the creationists... im not vouching for those yet... just the misconceptions about evolution.

Lovely. Addresses mythconceptions of both the scientist and the creationist.

Remember that Joule, Bohr, Braun, Pasteur, Maxwell, Kelvin, et cetera are included in the Creationist category...

Doesn't mean they weren't competent scientists. Besides, who asked you?

Your stolidity is astounding. In the original sense...

Also, your separation of "scientists" and "creationist" is a form of the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN fallacy.

I could easily, in words alone as you have done, separate "scientists" and "Quatermass".

You may, as I am not a recognised scientist yet. While I have the qualifications, I am yet to provide papers or research.

"Creationism" isn't a science. It is rationalisations coupled with make believe. And seperating scientists from creationists is NOT a form of the no true scotsman fallacy. No True Scotsman fallacy deals with over defining a category to be so specific that no one can realistically fit into it. Where Scientist is a common use word for person who is "a person with advanced knowledge of one or more sciences" -TheFreeDictionary.com

So where a Creationist might be a scientist through some other means, someone with only knowledge of Creationism is NOT a scientist, because Creationism isn't a science.

Kelvin's major objection was that he thought Darwin's estimate of the minimum age of the Earth of 3000 million years, derived from estimating rates of erosion in the Weald (a large valley), was an overestimate. Erosion is ultimately powered by the sun (which creates temperature differences, evaporates water that then rains down, powers the wind, etc.), so Kelvin reasoned quite rightly that the erosion of the Weald could not have taken longer than the sun was there to power it. From the physical processes known at the time, Kelvin calculated an age of the sun of about 20 million years. Kelvin did not include nuclear fusion in his calculation, because no one knew of it at the time.

You can read about this in detail here and here.

This is one of two examples where what Darwin saw as a serious problem for his theory later turned out to be a success. The theory implied, indirectly but necessarily, that there must be other heat generating processes in the sun than those Kelvin knew. The same is true for the theory of heredity prominent at Darwin's time, which he tried to reconcile with evolution. It was later proven that the maths don't work, that evolution would be impossible if the theory of heredity as a quantitative blend of parental characteristics were true. With these two theories being incompatible, evolution being true would mean that this theory of heredity had to be wrong, and the latter did turn out to be wrong.

I haven't found anything on the views of Bohr, Braun or Pasteur, only many creationist claims that "Pasteur’s work should have dealt the death blow to the idea of spontaneous generation. But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution. That may sound good if you don't think about it, but it is wrong. Spontaneous generation, at a rate assumed by some Greek and Medieval philosophers and disproved by Pasteur, is inconsistent with all evolutionary analyses of descent I have ever seen. How can you have heritable variation if new individuals pop into existence without parents within a period ranging from hours to weeks? The claim that Pasteur's work disproves evolution demonstrates ignorance of either evolution or the meaning of Pasteur's findings.

Getting back to your list of scientists, I found a brief mention of Joule in an essay on maxwell's position on evolution. Joule is quoted as being one of the most prominent names on an 1865 Declaration of the Natural and Physical Sciences that stated “We conceive that it is impossible for the Word of God, as written in the book of nature, and God’s Word written in Holy Scripture, to contradict one another, however much they may appear to differ.” That is, of course, a theological reason for objecting to evolution. I have not been able to find out whether Joule had a scientific reason.

The essay on Maxwell is interesting for reasons other than that it mentions Joule. I do think you have to strike Maxwell from your list of creationists. That claim seems to be a fabrication. Read the essay for the details, it is worth your time if you are interested in there being evidence for what you say.

The whole thing between Darwin and Lord Kelvin is a good example of what I like to call physics-centrism, the notion that if a theory in physics and the theory in another area conflict it must be the theory in the other area that is wrong, and the tendency of physicists to poke their noses and critique theories in other fields just because they are physicists and are thus better then the "softer" scientists. A more recent example of this was when astrophysicist Fred Hoyle started spewing his wacky notions of "evolution from space" and claiming Archeopteryx was a forgery, and going around saying evolutionary biologists were idiots.

Bohr? Wait, I don't think he was a creationist.

Anyway, most of the scientists you named did their work before Darwin started publishing. Had they been around when he did, they most likely would have accepted evolution.

How is that relevant? Those were physicists, with the exception of Pasteur. And there is no reason to believe that Pasteur rejected evolution.

scientists aren't infallible.... so don't idolize them just cause they happen to agree with one of your ideas.

are you going to address anything explicitly in response to these misconceptions?

i want creationists to give some sort of rebuttal to this website...

cause i've heard OVER AND OVER so many of the misconceptions addressed on this site and i feel it gives pretty decent responses to these misconceptions... I need a creationist with 1/2 a brain to discuss why this website is wrong....

Either that....... or GIVE UP.