What regular people think "evolution" is

[Soapy Sam]

Vorticity- Agreed. I've discussed evolution with people who had hard opinions on it (negative) yet turned out to have very little understanding about how it actually works. I have found this most extremely in the USA.
(Sorry over there. I'm not an American knocker, as I hope you know, but there is a big mismatch on this issue between Europe and the 'States. It's not so big as it was twenty years ago - and I'm afraid for the wrong reasons. We are getting worse, rather than you getting better.)

 

[Yelper]

Sometimes when crafting your message, you have to think, What Would MTV Do?

Now my sig, thank you

Lets not forget that it is the evolution theory; it has not been proven, yet. Science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past. Don’t be so cocksure of yourself.

From The almight source of all knowledge, ever:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

Basically, (as has been said many times): replace the word 'evolution' with 'gravity' and see how silly things sound.

 

[hipparchia]

Creationism in Bulgaria is still far from seeping into the educational system. Mostly readers of random rubbish will have found out those ideas and will try to spread them and argue them (poorly) on internet forums.

Let me tell you a little anecdote from my grandfather's childhood.
A teacher asked a kid what are the origins of man. The child stands at the blackboard, sweating over the answer. A kid from the class tries to help him by whispering: "From Adam and Eve"- half jokingly, my granddad says, just to trick the poor student at the blackboard to repeat the stupid answer and get licked. Well, the kid just grabs at this straw and says out loud, "Humans come from Adam and Eve". Slap! from teacher. Laughs from class. Isn't that one good way to teach evolution...

Now, evolution is not taught anymore in this barbaric way, but it seems the sound foundations of this theory in public education are quite useful. Nobody around here will take the claim about Adam and Eve for more than a joke and at best, an allegory.

Also, we have the good Marxist slogan of "Labor turned ape into human" which kinda gives an image of how an animal may acquire skills and change over time.

How has this slogan survived into our post-communist society which now hates Marx quotes? Only accompanied by a second slogan- "And too much labor will turn a man into a monkey".

 

[AWPrime]

I guess my point is that science is portrayed by many religious people as an attempt to subvert and destroy religion. This simply isn't true. Science attempts to explain observable phenomena using logic and reason - religion doesn't come into it. Science is not an affront to religion, it is, as you alluded, an affront to stupidity and this is an affliction that far to many religious people possess.

But logic and reason are the enemies of stupidity.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The reason we don't have night vision, can't breath underwater, don't live longer, can't fly, etc is fairly simple.

Evolution is not a matter of nature saying "gee, good night vision would help this species survive, I think I'll do a mutation that gives them good night vision.

Evolution is matter of a random mutation gives some individuals in a species better night vision. That mutation gives them a better survival rate, therefore more of the individuals with that trait tend to survive and reproduce. Eventually (over many thousands or millions of years), all the members of that species have that trait.

If no random mutation ever occurs in a species giving it the ability then it will never develop in that species. Or it may have occured in a species but the drawbacks outweighed the benefits and therefore those members of the species didn't have a better chance of survival.

Sorry for my slow response, but yes, what Bob said.

 

[Dr Adequate]

If no random mutation ever occurs in a species giving it the ability then it will never develop in that species. Or it may have occured in a species but the drawbacks outweighed the benefits and therefore those members of the species didn't have a better chance of survival.

That would be about right. If the size of our eyes is fixed, then we can only add rods at the expense of cones. Or increase the size of our eyeballs, at the expense of cranial capacity. In fact we're diurnal and color vision is useful to us (so are big brains).

 

[Soapy Sam]

In fact we're diurnal and color vision is useful to us (so are big brains).

Mind you - some folk would probably manage without either, by feeling their way in the dark.


I think we should bear in mind that while this question interests us, for most people in the world it's utterly unimportant. When you have to carry water two miles from the nearest well and don't know what you'll eat tomorrow, whether grandad was a giraffe is hardly an urgent issue.
Same is true for most people just trying to make a living.

 

[Bradk3]

I think we should bear in mind that while this question interests us, for most people in the world it's utterly unimportant. When you have to carry water two miles from the nearest well and don't know what you'll eat tomorrow, whether grandad was a giraffe is hardly an urgent issue.
Same is true for most people just trying to make a living.

But it is important that "people just trying to make a living" understand what evolution is. As has been pointed out, if you don't understand evolution, it's easy to pass it off as ridiculous. And that is precisely what IDers thrive on.

"People just trying to make a living" are also voters...

 

[Dr Adequate]

I think we should bear in mind that while this question interests us, for most people in the world it's utterly unimportant.

It's not unimportant to the people who are vehemently wrong about it and try to force creationist crud into the schools. And they seem to find a sufficient number of dupes to back them.

 

[Bradk3]

It's not unimportant to the people who are vehemently wrong about it and try to force creationist crud into the schools. And they seem to find a sufficient number of dupes to back them.

Dang! You said what I did - only better.

At least I beat you to it.

 

[JPK]

Good morning The Painter.

Lets not forget that it is the evolution theory; it has not been proven, yet. Science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past. Don’t be so cocksure of yourself.

This is exactly what I was wrinting about in my first post in this thread. When someone demonstrates that they do not understand the meaning of the word theory ,in the scientific usage, or chooses not to accept it, there is no point in going further in a social setting with that discussion. I could point out that the motion of the planets going around the Sun is only a theory as well. Or that when you drop something it falls toward the ground is only a theory but this always sounds like I'm playing a game.
I stand by the statement that evolution is a fact. The mechanism of how things evolve, is what the creationalists/ID'ers and Darwin dissagree on.
If you want to discuss or put forward other theories of how things evolve, scientists will be more then happy to entertain your ideas. Keep in mind however that Darwin's Theory of evolution through natural selection is a robust theory that so far is strongly supported by the existing evidence.
None of this has to do with the fact that evolution does occur. ( I only wish I was the first to use the term cocksure as it is one of my favorites. )
Oh and I could be wrong here but the other common missconception put forward by the creationalist/ID'ers camp has to do with the origin of life itself. As far as I can tell, Darwin's theory makes no such claims on the topic.
JPK

T

 

[Bob Klase]

Oh and I could be wrong here but the other common missconception put forward by the creationalist/ID'ers camp has to do with the origin of life itself. As far as I can tell, Darwin's theory makes no such claims on the topic.

It doesn't. That misconception is used by evolution opponents both because of ignorance (they don't know what the theory of evolution says, or even what a scientific theory really is), and intentionally to create a strawman they can knock down ("the theory can't tell us how life started, therefore the theory is wrong").

 

[3point14]

I think ignorance, or rather, fear of ignorance is a driving factor.

I like to think of myself as a little more intelligent than average (which probably means that I'm really only about average) and having read a decent amount on the subject of evolution, I still don't understand it completely (does anyone? completetely? I don't know) - I know roughly how it works, how beneficial mutations mean an increased chance of procreation and I have a vague handle on the process. I will never, however, have the intelligence, or the knowledge to understand it inside and out. This is frustrating, but I can live with it, I have to trust those smarter than me to understand the bits I can't, and trust to the scientific method (which I do understand) that their conclusions are accurate and verifiable. That's fine, I can live with that.

Perhaps it's easier for some peoples ego to believe that no-one[/] can understand it at all and that it's all 'god's work'. This makes tham feel less ignorant and less insignificant, because althought they don't understand it, no-one else does.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Slightly off topic: If you want to watch the argumentation of someone who thinks he has a grasp on evolution, even a mathematical one, you might enjoy following this thread:

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

~~ Paul

I don't understand the OP. How is that exponential growth? It's much more closely linear. Perhaps you were too polite to point out his error?

Depending on the reason I was assembled in the room with these other people, I might simply ask, "What lead you to believe that?"

It probably would be better to ask "What led you to believe that?"

I was lied to so much about evolution when I went to church camps. Then there is that stupid evolution picture that shows an ape turning into a man, which is not used at all when actual science discussion is involved.

And yet the book "Icons of Evoultion" presents it as an example of dishonesty on the part of evolutionists.

The fact that you underline the word theory shows that you have learnt what "theory" means from a creationist rather than a scientist or a dictionary.

Don't be silly. Everyone knows what "theory" means: supposition. Take, for instance, a course on "Automotive Theory". This is clearly claiming that the existence of automobiles is supposition.

 

[davefoc]

... When you call people a “regular guy” it is very condescending. If you talk to people, instead of down to them, they are more willing to listen.

I take issue with this. I don't think any condescention was intended nor do I think it appropriate to find it in the term.

I thought I knew exactly what was intended by it and I was interested to see some ideas about what the "regular guy" might think about evolution.

I would not call the people who take part in this forum "regular guys" in the context of this discussion. That doesn't mean we are a superior group, it just means that we are different from the norm with regard to our world views.

For the most part we are all coming from a place where we believe truth matters and that truth is the rational basis for the formation of views. We like discussing things with other peiople that think like that.

I am not all that sure that truth really does matter, but I like to at least pretend that it does and I like hanging out here with other people who are willing to pretend that truth matters along with me.

This is geeky behavior. Not something to necessarily be proud of, or to be a source of a sense of superiority over other people. But it is reasonable in the context of this discussion to recognize ourselves as not "reqular guys" without making a judgment as to whether this makes us superior or inferior to somebody else.

 

[Jas]

Lets not forget that it is the evolution theory; it has not been proven, yet. Science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past. Don’t be so cocksure of yourself.

*sigh* What everyone else said.

Something that I found to be funny, yet sad, was on the Kurt Cameron evolution special, where they did man on the street interviews.

 

[athon]

From teaching evolution on numerous occasions, I can tell you that most kids think evolution in Lamarckian terms. They know that things change over time, and accept that, but think 'if it's cold, an animal will slowly grow a coat'. In other words, it can occur inside a single generation, albeit very very slowly.

Adaptation is confused for environmental impact and the genetic process is basically swept under the carpet and ignored.

Changing this is not hard to do, and I actually have a comparitively good success rate with getting kids to understand complicated genetics and evolution (my A level's kicked arse last year on biology papers dealing with genetics and evolution).

But it's interesting that the same pre-formed concepts are common in most of the classes I've taught.

Athon

 

[CaveDave]

Vorticity- Agreed. I've discussed evolution with people who had hard opinions on it (negative) yet turned out to have very little understanding about how it actually works. I have found this most extremely in the USA.

Oh, really?

Seems I've heard of all sorts of fundy stuff coming from all sorts of groups all over Europe in particular and worldwide in general.

Salmon Rushdie, Denmark, Paris, to name a few.
(I will NOT now invoke Godwin's law)

The news media seems salivate at the prospect of pointing out all the shortcomings of the US, and will amplify them far beyond what is really deserved.

There are irrational fundies globe-wide, many controlling entire nations or even subcontinents; please look at the broader view and narrow-down that paintbrush.

Remember those irreplacable Buddha carvings?

Yes, we maybe have more than our share of bizarro-christian cults, but there are many more here who have a milder version of the disease, and are comparable to the world average.

Let's see, which continent (or region) has the largest per-capita number of structures and land area coverage devoted to the glorification of the SkyDaddy, and has expended (historically, at least) the greatest percentage of their gross national product and man-years of labor to the construction of same?

I don't know, but I'll bet it is not north America.

(Sorry over there. I'm not an American knocker, as I hope you know, but there is a big mismatch on this issue between Europe and the 'States. It's not so big as it was twenty years ago - and I'm afraid for the wrong reasons. We are getting worse, rather than you getting better.)

I never have believed you were, but I think there is a blinding factor that too many otherwise rational people succumb to, which is closely related to the "knock that guy off the hill so we can be on top" (Rinse, Repeat) attitude.

Just my perspective.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[JPK]

Good morning Art Vandelay.

It probably would be better to ask "What led you to believe that?"

No wonder they looked at me funny? Thanks for the suggestion.

JPK

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't understand the OP. How is that exponential growth? It's much more closely linear. Perhaps you were too polite to point out his error?

It's pointed out to him many times as the thread progresses. Multiple posts include fits to curves that, although not linear, are a hell of a lot slower than 4^x.

~~ Paul