NationStates Jolt Archive

In the new threads about Evolution vs ID, there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about Biological Evolution. I believe that some of this confusion may be due to the messy, historical concepts and terms that are unfortunately already entrenched in the literature.

I'll try use a simple way to clarify some of these.

First, the basic concept.

Darwin observed that:

a) many more offspring are born than can be sustained by the environment.

b) the offspring are very similar to each other except for small differences.

He observed that those offspring with differences that best suited their environment and live long enough to reproduce will pass their traits to future generations. The others get out-competed and die.

He argues that over time, organisms can spread out and diversify so much that some descendant populations can no longer interbreed. Speciation occurs. After millions of years a single ancestor can produce a wide variety of descendants, explaining the biodiversity on our planet.

What I think are commonly confused things:

- A scientific "theory" is not something unsure. Scientific "laws" and "theories" are solidly supported and are at equal rank, whereas "hypotheses" are more unsure. It is unfortunate that the everyday meaning of "theory" is something else. When in confusion I prefer to use the "fact" of evolution.

- Natural "selection" is not an active selection process requiring a deity. A better term is "preservation" or "survival". Too bad historical reasons (Darwin was thinking of artificial selection in dog breeding) led to the term "selection".

- Biological evolution is not teleology. There is no march of the species up the Ladder of Nature. Modern animals cannot be the ancestor of other modern animals, for example, mice are not the ancestor of humans. For example modern bacteria are not more "ancient" than mammals. They are as diverged in evolutionary time from our prokaryote ancestor as we are.

- The origin of the physical Universe (Big Bang) and the origin of the first prokaryote ancestor (Abiogenesis) are separate theories from biological evolution. So far there are no conflicts between these theories, but they are independent of each other. If Big Bang is wrong and say, Steady State is correct, Abiogenesis and Biological Evolution can still be right.

Let me point out that all those stories about assembling a 747 from random parts in a tornado are really criticisms directed towards Abiogenesis, not at biological evolution.

- To biologists "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are meaningless terms. Organisms that diverge so much from their parental populations that they can no longer interbreed have already evolved. Every branch in the evolutionary tree begins with a speciation step. Divergence into different phyla requires numerous such steps. You cannot demand to see a human evolve in one step from an amphibian, because that is not how evolution works.

If there are any additional clarifications, please add them to this list. I will be happy to discuss any questions regarding this. :)

Instead of arguing this dead horse topic over and over again, please point ALL people who object to evolution over to talk.origins.

This is a good starting point:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

the people arguing against evolution can only be woefully misinformed about it (or just very very stubborn). Explained properly evolution makes complete and utter sense; it's so obviously true once you understand it. I'm surprised it took biologists themselves so long to work it out, infact.

In the new threads about Evolution vs ID, there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about Biological Evolution. I believe that some of this confusion may be due to the messy, historical concepts and terms that are unfortunately already entrenched in the literature.

Thanks, Xisla, now I understand more. I don't believe in God anymore. The fact of evolution is an alternative view of creation, BUT THIS IS THE TRUE FACT, not the Bible! This knowledge should be revered, not attacked by Christians. I wish the government would establish the evolution as TRUE FACT once and for all. When people deny evolution, it hurts all of humanity.

I'm glad you taught me what your public school teachers taught you about evolution, I was too stupid before. As a side effect, which I'm sure wasn't your intention, I now realize that I am free from God. I am free from His moral law, and I can do whatever I want!

As teenagers, you and I both understand that the fundamental right of privacy, which includes the right to sex under it, is protected by the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. In fact, without a lot of sex we wouldn't have evolved from our common ancestor that we share with Chimpanzee and Bonobo. With these protections built in to our modern Constitution, we can do whatever we want without worrying about the consequences!

In the Northeast and California, the most advanced portions of the United States, we are lucky that schools provides free condoms, birth control pills, diaphragms, and helps pregnant teenagers get access to abortion. If I had to rely on my parents, who are too stupid and believe this God nonsense, I might have to deal with a child before I'm ready, or stop having sex, which would be unconstitutional.

- To biologists "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are meaningless terms.

i just have one comment on all that you said; to biologists microevolution and macroevolution are not meaningless terms... that's all I had to say :p

Thanks, Xisla, now I understand more. I don't believe in God anymore. The fact of evolution is an alternative view of creation, BUT THIS IS THE TRUE FACT, not the Bible! This knowledge should be revered, not attacked by Christians. I wish the government would establish the evolution as TRUE FACT once and for all. When people deny evolution, it hurts all of humanity.

I'm glad you taught me what your public school teachers taught you about evolution, I was too stupid before. As a side effect, which I'm sure wasn't your intention, I now realize that I am free from God. I am free from His moral law, and I can do whatever I want!

As teenagers, you and I both understand that the fundamental right of privacy, which includes the right to sex under it, is protected by the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. In fact, without a lot of sex we wouldn't have evolved from our common ancestor that we share with Chimpanzee and Bonobo. With these protections built in to our modern Constitution, we can do whatever we want without worrying about the consequences!

In the Northeast and California, the most advanced portions of the United States, we are lucky that schools provides free condoms, birth control pills, diaphragms, and helps pregnant teenagers get access to abortion. If I had to rely on my parents, who are too stupid and believe this God nonsense, I might have to deal with a child before I'm ready, or stop having sex, which would be unconstitutional.

Point: How much evidence is there for the Bible? Contrasted to how much for the theories of Evolution massed together?

Point: How much evidence is there for the Bible? Contrasted to how much for the theories of Evolution massed together?

I'm a committed progressive Democrat, committed to the teaching of True Science, however, since you ask me a Christian based question, then I will pretend to be fundy for sake of counter-argument.

The point I think most Christians make is that they don't oppose the teaching of evolution, they oppose the teaching of Evolution as a substitute for faith.

The better solution is to privatize the public schools. For the most part, they can't even teach the basic reading, writing and math, and everyone is all in a tizzy about evolution. Evolution isn't even essential to be taught in high school. Let parents select the schools they want. Sure, a large portion of parents will opt for a religiously-grounded school. But, on the flip side, your parents can send you to a Positive Atheist or a Secular Humanist school, and you will be happy.

Karl Marx knew that we he promoted his platform for the transition to communism through socialism, that by nationalizing key sectors, it politicizes them. Let's undo the scourge of Marxism, and allow free choice again.

But in reality, since I am a progressive Democrat and not a Christian fundamentialist Republican., I realize that progressive social change can only occur through government-run education, so I don't suppost this idea at all.

A scientific "theory" is not something unsure.

The single most important part of your post.

Allow me to go a bit further:

A theory is WAY more than an educated guess. In fact, a hypothesis more fits that description. A theory is a hypothesis that has underwent extensive experimentation and the results have come out favoring it. All other hypotheses have either been clearly shown false or lack evidence at all.

Now, theories aren't set in stone--they can (and most, if not all) have been twinked at the arrival of new evidence. Should the correct evidence appear, a theory can even be shown wrong.

So far there's no challenging theory to evolution (in the scientific community). There's no evidence that has been collected to disprove it. We understand evolution so well that I'd wager it's science's most understood concept. Maybe that evidence exits, or maybe it doesn't; but if you want to disprove evolution, you need to find that evidence.

And finally, if you do have the evidence, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If it turns out to disprove evolution, you're probably going to be rich.

I'm a committed regressive totalitarian theocratThat has to be the most pathetic dodge I've seen since last time I had an argument with Corney. Why don't you answer Skinny's questions when you quote them?

NB: Fixed your statement about yourself. No offence intended.

I'm a committed progressive Democrat, committed to the teaching of True Science, however, since you ask me a Christian based question, then I will pretend to be fundy for sake of counter-argument.

The point I think most Christians make is that they don't oppose the teaching of evolution, they oppose the teaching of Evolution as a substitute for faith.

The better solution is to privatize the public schools. For the most part, they can't even teach the basic reading, writing and math, and everyone is all in a tizzy about evolution. Evolution isn't even essential to be taught in high school. Let parents select the schools they want. Sure, a large portion of parents will opt for a religiously-grounded school. But, on the flip side, your parents can send you to a Positive Atheist or a Secular Humanist school, and you will be happy.

Karl Marx knew that we he promoted his platform for the transition to communism through socialism, that by nationalizing key sectors, it politicizes them. Let's undo the scourge of Marxism, and allow free choice again.

But in reality, since I am a progressive Democrat and not a Christian fundamentialist Republican., I realize that progressive social change can only occur through government-run education, so I don't suppost this idea at all.


Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Stop wasting everyones time. Remember that bit in the bible about not bearing false witness. Think about what it is saying and what you are doing when you write something like this that you do not believe.

If your agument is so weak you cannot defend it straight up then it is time to abandon it and I know that the arguement is not that weak!

I'm a committed progressive Democrat, committed to the teaching of True Science, however, since you ask me a Christian based question, then I will pretend to be fundy for sake of counter-argument.

ROFL.
You actually are getting better at this :)

The point I think most Christians make is that they don't oppose the teaching of evolution, they oppose the teaching of Evolution as a substitute for faith.

... I am amazed. That actually is a reasonably succinct observation.

Evolution isn't even essential to be taught in high school.

Why not ?

Let parents select the schools they want. Sure, a large portion of parents will opt for a religiously-grounded school. But, on the flip side, your parents can send you to a Positive Atheist or a Secular Humanist school, and you will be happy.
As long as there is a minimum standard and list of subjects that the school is *required* to teach the students, I can accept schools teaching additional subjects or have activities like prayer.
I do however dislike teaching *lies*.

I'm a committed progressive Democrat, committed to the teaching of True Science, however, since you ask me a Christian based question, then I will pretend to be fundy for sake of counter-argument.

The point I think most Christians make is that they don't oppose the teaching of evolution, they oppose the teaching of Evolution as a substitute for faith.

The better solution is to privatize the public schools. For the most part, they can't even teach the basic reading, writing and math, and everyone is all in a tizzy about evolution. Evolution isn't even essential to be taught in high school. Let parents select the schools they want. Sure, a large portion of parents will opt for a religiously-grounded school. But, on the flip side, your parents can send you to a Positive Atheist or a Secular Humanist school, and you will be happy.

Karl Marx knew that we he promoted his platform for the transition to communism through socialism, that by nationalizing key sectors, it politicizes them. Let's undo the scourge of Marxism, and allow free choice again.

But in reality, since I am a progressive Democrat and not a Christian fundamentialist Republican., I realize that progressive social change can only occur through government-run education, so I don't suppost this idea at all.

Very nice.


Now answer the damned question.

The single most important part of your post.

Allow me to go a bit further:

A theory is WAY more than an educated guess. In fact, a hypothesis more fits that description. A theory is a hypothesis that has underwent extensive experimentation and the results have come out favoring it. All other hypotheses have either been clearly shown false or lack evidence at all.

Now, theories aren't set in stone--they can (and most, if not all) have been twinked at the arrival of new evidence. Should the correct evidence appear, a theory can even be shown wrong.

So far there's no challenging theory to evolution (in the scientific community). There's no evidence that has been collected to disprove it. We understand evolution so well that I'd wager it's science's most understood concept. Maybe that evidence exits, or maybe it doesn't; but if you want to disprove evolution, you need to find that evidence.

And finally, if you do have the evidence, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If it turns out to disprove evolution, you're probably going to be rich.

Why is String theory a theory when it has not been confirmed by empirical observation? Aren't there in fact two uses of the word theory? One that is consistent with what you say -- confirmed (by the evidence) rigiourously over time -- and the other that has to do with some large coherent system. So, within science, 'theory' does not have only one meaning.

Why is String theory a theory when it has not been confirmed by empirical observation?

Because it is a mathematical construct. Mathematicians like to be use different teminology. since they can often actually *prove* their statements.

Why is String theory a theory when it has not been confirmed by empirical observation? Aren't there in fact two uses of the word theory? One that is consistent with what you say -- confirmed (by the evidence) rigiourously over time -- and the other that has to do with some large coherent system. So, within science, 'theory' does not have only one meaning.
I think it's this coloquial and sometimes not too rigorous use of the word by scientists that can be confusing. String theory is called "theory" because mathematically it makes sense (kinda) but it's really more like an hypothesis because there have been no observations or experiments to support it.

Because it is a mathematical construct. Mathematicians like to be use different teminology. since they can often actually *prove* their statements.

Check Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

it doesn't just refer to those systems that have been rigioursly supported.

i just have one comment on all that you said; to biologists microevolution and macroevolution are not meaningless terms... that's all I had to say :p


As I understand it the terms are used in biology to distinguish between variation within a species and speciation. Although there is some disagreement among the scientific community as to the exact definition of speciation the generally accepted definition is that if two creatures can produce fertile offspring then they're the same species (I'm no scientist so if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me).

It would have been better if the OP had said: "micro and macro evolution are different but the mechanism is the same. Claiming to accept one while denying the other serves no purpose beyond making you look like an idiot."

Ironically, many Creationist 'models' (and I use the word reluctantly) rely on macro evolution occuring at an extraordinary rate after the flood. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

In the new threads about Evolution vs ID, there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about Biological Evolution. I believe that some of this confusion may be due to the messy, historical concepts and terms that are unfortunately already entrenched in the literature.

I'll try use a simple way to clarify some of these.

First, the basic concept.

Darwin observed that:

a) many more offspring are born than can be sustained by the environment.

b) the offspring are very similar to each other except for small differences.

He observed that those offspring with differences that best suited their environment and live long enough to reproduce will pass their traits to future generations. The others get out-competed and die.

He argues that over time, organisms can spread out and diversify so much that some descendant populations can no longer interbreed. Speciation occurs. After millions of years a single ancestor can produce a wide variety of descendants, explaining the biodiversity on our planet.

What I think are commonly confused things:

- A scientific "theory" is not something unsure. Scientific "laws" and "theories" are solidly supported and are at equal rank, whereas "hypotheses" are more unsure. It is unfortunate that the everyday meaning of "theory" is something else. When in confusion I prefer to use the "fact" of evolution.

- Natural "selection" is not an active selection process requiring a deity. A better term is "preservation" or "survival". Too bad historical reasons (Darwin was thinking of artificial selection in dog breeding) led to the term "selection".

- Biological evolution is not teleology. There is no march of the species up the Ladder of Nature. Modern animals cannot be the ancestor of other modern animals, for example, mice are not the ancestor of humans. For example modern bacteria are not more "ancient" than mammals. They are as diverged in evolutionary time from our prokaryote ancestor as we are.

- The origin of the physical Universe (Big Bang) and the origin of the first prokaryote ancestor (Abiogenesis) are separate theories from biological evolution. So far there are no conflicts between these theories, but they are independent of each other. If Big Bang is wrong and say, Steady State is correct, Abiogenesis and Biological Evolution can still be right.

Let me point out that all those stories about assembling a 747 from random parts in a tornado are really criticisms directed towards Abiogenesis, not at biological evolution.

- To biologists "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are meaningless terms. Organisms that diverge so much from their parental populations that they can no longer interbreed have already evolved. Every branch in the evolutionary tree begins with a speciation step. Divergence into different phyla requires numerous such steps. You cannot demand to see a human evolve in one step from an amphibian, because that is not how evolution works.

If there are any additional clarifications, please add them to this list. I will be happy to discuss any questions regarding this. :)

Let it also be known that EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM do NOT necessarily contradict the other. One is a faith-driven idea WHY the universe is the way that it is, while EVOLUTION explains HOW life [more specifically biological species and diversity] is the way that it is today.

If you want to make an argument between the two, you will get just headaches and no one will agree that either or is correct - personally, I think both are correct, because they answer different questions [but that does not mean I believe in ID, because that's just one horrible theory in itself that should not have been ever conceived...but oh well, let God sort it out...]


BTW - I really appreciate someone actually going out to provide some basic idea of the theory, but eventually, it all comes to them wanting to believe something that's inherently true.

As I understand it the terms are used in biology to distinguish between variation within a species and speciation. Although there is some disagreement among the scientific community as to the exact definition of speciation the generally accepted definition is that if two creatures can produce fertile offspring then they're the same species (I'm no scientist so if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me).

It would have been better if the OP had said: "micro and macro evolution are different but the mechanism is the same. Claiming to accept one while denying the other serves no purpose beyond making you look like an idiot."

Ironically, many Creationist 'models' (and I use the word reluctantly) rely on macro evolution occuring at an extraordinary rate after the flood. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

microevolution is the process that the drives individual changes [hereditary traits, favorable stuff and that]. macroevolutionn is the process by which microevolution drives entire group of individuals to such an extent that they can be classified as two unique groups of individuals [two different species].

i just have one comment on all that you said; to biologists microevolution and macroevolution are not meaningless terms... that's all I had to say :p

Yes, they pretty much are. They are not terms used in biology. They are terms invented by those who think that they can place arbitrary lines (which move constantly), so that they can always say that there is one or another thing that has not been directly observed.


As I understand it the terms are used in biology to distinguish between variation within a species and speciation.

No, they are used by those outside of biology to describe that. In biology, we refer to species, subspecies, and variable traits. We don't use "microevolution" and "macroevolution".

Although there is some disagreement among the scientific community as to the exact definition of speciation the generally accepted definition is that if two creatures can produce fertile offspring then they're the same species (I'm no scientist so if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me).

This is correct in sexually reproducing organisms. Asexually reproducing organisms are a little harder to define. That's not really my area though, so I won't go further into it than that.

Thanks, Xisla, now I understand more. I don't believe in God anymore. The fact of evolution is an alternative view of creation, BUT THIS IS THE TRUE FACT, not the Bible! This knowledge should be revered, not attacked by Christians. I wish the government would establish the evolution as TRUE FACT once and for all. When people deny evolution, it hurts all of humanity.

I'm glad you taught me what your public school teachers taught you about evolution, I was too stupid before. As a side effect, which I'm sure wasn't your intention, I now realize that I am free from God. I am free from His moral law, and I can do whatever I want!

As teenagers, you and I both understand that the fundamental right of privacy, which includes the right to sex under it, is protected by the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. In fact, without a lot of sex we wouldn't have evolved from our common ancestor that we share with Chimpanzee and Bonobo. With these protections built in to our modern Constitution, we can do whatever we want without worrying about the consequences!

In the Northeast and California, the most advanced portions of the United States, we are lucky that schools provides free condoms, birth control pills, diaphragms, and helps pregnant teenagers get access to abortion. If I had to rely on my parents, who are too stupid and believe this God nonsense, I might have to deal with a child before I'm ready, or stop having sex, which would be unconstitutional.

I can't emphasize this enough. Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. This explanation for diversity of life doesn't tell you how you should run your society. Ant societies, Elephant societies, Human societies have their own rules and morals.

Besides, social and cultural evolution doesn't proceed via Natural selection. I haven't read much on this field, but the mechanism is most likely Lamarckian.

Also, you can have moral systems without God, both consequentialist (Bentham) and deontological (Kant). Thus, even if God doesn't exist, you can still have a moral code. Which kind of moral system is better, though, is open to debate.

Hey Xis - i've got a few articles of possible interest i'll post on the morrow, if the thread's still up.

why is everyone failing to mention the biggest lie of creationist. they say evolutionist believe men evolved from monkeys... Arg, talk about misinformed. darwin never said that, nor would anyone who actully believes in evolution. this is what is called a straw man arguement, creationst 1 strawmen 0. of course the strawmen lose, becuase they arent real people. And don't try to correct yourseve and say oh i meant apes, one of the reasons you confuse apes with monkeys as beaining the same thing is just another reason darwin is mostly right. I say mostly becuase I am honest, he is a man after all he can't be 100% correct, perfection is impossible. I would argue speciation is designed not random. think about it, different species can't breed. lets take two groups both have dna genes of the simplified sequnce ABC. then there is a mutation ABD this looks almost identicle to its parents, just a baby step in evolution but ABD can't breed with ABC since it is a different species, another creature would have to be born with ABD mutation odds that changes species are very low and they might be BBC, or CBA or some such that drop dead do too cripling mutation, die before reaching sexual maturity or are completly nfertile due to a mutation, so even if mutation was likly the chance of another ABD being born not only within the life span of the first but living too sexual maturity and finding the first ABD within its short span of sexual maturity. lets assume this very unlikly thing does happen, well fine they Have ABD kids. but then the ABD kids have a problem.. who do they mate with? everyone else is ABC or immediate family, the only chioce they would have is incest, wich we know has a very very poor chance of making offspring that suvive to maturity, inbreeding very bad for a species. note this is also why the Adam and Eve story is inpossible, their kids would breed incestustly and die or have horrible birth defects. this is just what happens with incest.