Evolution Misconceptions

Page 2 of 4 [ 55 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 May 2008, 10:53 am

Sedaka wrote:

I need a creationist with 1/2 a brain

I need to find a way to turn lead into gold. Frankly, I think I'll have more luck in my search than you will.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Escuerd
Raven
Raven

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 101

10 May 2008, 11:27 am

Sedaka wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Quatermass wrote:

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...

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

I was going to write almost the same thing Gromit wrote to him.

What you say is absolutely true (in fact, one shouldn't act as though scientists are infallible for any reason). But he didn't actually show that he was idolizing them. I think he was merely responding to categorizing scientists and creationists into disjoint sets.

They aren't mutually exclusive in principle, but in practice they have been very nearly so for some time now.

Escuerd
Raven
Raven

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 101

10 May 2008, 11:31 am

Quatermass wrote:

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

I don't recall ever hearing any of those misconceptions from scientists, but then again, that's not much of a random sample. Still, I wouldn't expect them to be common.

I've heard a lot of them from non-scientists (both who do and don't accept that evolution is real), though.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

10 May 2008, 11:33 am

Orwell wrote:

Sedaka wrote:

I need a creationist with 1/2 a brain

I need to find a way to turn lead into gold. Frankly, I think I'll have more luck in my search than you will.

No, no, they can actually be very intelligent, and I think many evolutionary scientists recognize that, but say that their beliefs have pushed them into an intellectually indefensible position.

Escuerd
Raven
Raven

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 101

10 May 2008, 11:44 am

Odin wrote:

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.

Kelvin's objection was (at his time) much more reasonable than Hoyle's later on. That is, Kelvin's was (initially at least) a fairly legitimate agreement based on the best known physics of his time, and it wasn't clear that evolution and physics could be reconciled, so he favored the one that he understood the evidence for better. What's problematic is when people cite Kelvin's arguments now as though they still hold water.

Hoyle's was more like an arrogant (albeit brilliant) guy with a pet theory who didn't really seem to get the theory he was criticizing.

Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

10 May 2008, 12:25 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Sedaka wrote:

I need a creationist with 1/2 a brain

I need to find a way to turn lead into gold. Frankly, I think I'll have more luck in my search than you will.

No, no, they can actually be very intelligent, and I think many evolutionary scientists recognize that, but say that their beliefs have pushed them into an intellectually indefensible position.

yes, and i've heard some intellectual debate on the matter.... just not here. i've got responses though... should it arise... cause it's usually within predictable directions that the conversations always seem to flow.

_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 May 2008, 12:27 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Sedaka wrote:

I need a creationist with 1/2 a brain

I need to find a way to turn lead into gold. Frankly, I think I'll have more luck in my search than you will.

No, no, they can actually be very intelligent, and I think many evolutionary scientists recognize that, but say that their beliefs have pushed them into an intellectually indefensible position.

I know, I was just feeling sarcastic when I wrote that.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

10 May 2008, 12:30 pm

Escuerd wrote:

Odin wrote:

Kelvin's objection was (at his time) much more reasonable than Hoyle's later on. That is, Kelvin's was (initially at least) a fairly legitimate agreement based on the best known physics of his time, and it wasn't clear that evolution and physics could be reconciled, so he favored the one that he understood the evidence for better. What's problematic is when people cite Kelvin's arguments now as though they still hold water.

Hoyle's was more like an arrogant (albeit brilliant) guy with a pet theory who didn't really seem to get the theory he was criticizing.

people do this all the time when criticizing evolution... they cite theories that have been already rejected or corrected as if they are currently still believed.

i hardly ever see debate on evolution at the molecular level.... which is pretty much the main thrust of it now. people have heard of dna and maybe that it's in a double helix... but the dynamics of molecules and gene expression and all sorts of abstract things are not really known by the general public.

_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

10 May 2008, 12:40 pm

Sedaka wrote:

i hardly ever see debate on evolution at the molecular level.... which is pretty much the main thrust of it now. people have heard of dna and maybe that it's in a double helix... but the dynamics of molecules and gene expression and all sorts of abstract things are not really known by the general public.

exactly. as I have posted a couple of times already once one understands how genetics works at the molecular level it becomes impossible to reject evolution.

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

10 May 2008, 12:41 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

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".

Ad hominem?

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

10 May 2008, 12:43 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Quatermass wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Quatermass wrote:

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...

I first read that as stupidity, sorry I couldn't resist

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

Escuerd
Raven
Raven

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 101

10 May 2008, 1:05 pm

Sedaka wrote:

Escuerd wrote:

Kelvin's objection was (at his time) much more reasonable than Hoyle's later on. That is, Kelvin's was (initially at least) a fairly legitimate agreement based on the best known physics of his time, and it wasn't clear that evolution and physics could be reconciled, so he favored the one that he understood the evidence for better. What's problematic is when people cite Kelvin's arguments now as though they still hold water.

Hoyle's was more like an arrogant (albeit brilliant) guy with a pet theory who didn't really seem to get the theory he was criticizing.

people do this all the time when criticizing evolution... they cite theories that have been already rejected or corrected as if they are currently still believed.

Yeah, I've seen that all too often.

Sedaka wrote:

I've only rarely seen attempts by creationists to account for why we get nested hierarchical degrees of similarity in comparing the sequences of DNA or proteins, or comparing insertion points of transposons, etc., and that these relationships are so consistent. They mostly seem to ignore it. The only two I've seen attempt to address it were two of those that have training as biologists: Michael Denton and Duane Gish. Denton just revealed a fundamental misunderstanding that evolution was linear and not hierarchical, and Gish, well, Gish seemed to be making things up. Then there's Michael Behe, who has quietly stated that he accepts that this is convincing evidence for common descent (his issue is that he thinks natural selection is insufficient to account for it, but that's another topic for discussion).

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

10 May 2008, 1:13 pm

Sedaka wrote:

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 am just starting to read it, have read the first myth so far, and I yeah, the site seems to be very good, thanks for posting it.

A comment, I am taking a look at the "Survival of the fittest' justifies 'everyone for themselves'" myth and "Evolutionary theory leads to racism and genocide" which I have seen to be used by creationists here to dicredit evolution.

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

Last edited by greenblue on 10 May 2008, 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

10 May 2008, 1:15 pm

let's not even mention there's the whole field of epigenetics... which is about gene expression and other things, that has nothing to do with the genetic code.... explains why humans are so similar to chimps (~ 98%) and other mammals such as mice (it's ~ 96% or more, if i recall) at the genetic level.... yet so different.

_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

10 May 2008, 1:41 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Quatermass wrote:

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...

okay...and they didn't have the information we have today. so what's your point?

"I CAN FIND GUYS WHO BELIEVED IN CREATIONISM WHO WERE SCIENTISTS!! ! ignore that none of them are recent."

Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

10 May 2008, 4:23 pm

skafather84 wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Quatermass wrote:

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...

okay...and they didn't have the information we have today. so what's your point?

"I CAN FIND GUYS WHO BELIEVED IN CREATIONISM WHO WERE SCIENTISTS!! ! ignore that none of them are recent."

Dude, Aristotle, greatest philosopher ever, believed the world was made up of a 5 elements. We are so wrong. WTF is Uranium..

Page 2 of 4 [ 55 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Evolution Misconceptions Post Reply New Topic

Evolution Misconceptions