21–30 of 172 posts
Most often the discussion is about whether evolution is true or not.
Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point.
Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve.
There are no finite answers in evolution, only observations of phenomena. But those observations best describe the biological world.
I would point anyone who subscribes to any of the several current fad diets to this one: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq....
No matter how it's explained, I still can't wrap my brain around how evolution produces complex systems. How do systems with interdependent processes and parts get produced by a process that seems to proceed stepwise?
> How do systems with interdependent processes and parts get produced by a process that seems to proceed stepwise?
Slowly, and in very small steps. Not every step produces a "useful" change, either: most mutations are fatal, the rest is by and large neutral.
The initial biosphere was relatively simple, but after hundreds of millions of years, the system has grown huge and complex.
You can visualize evolution by imagining a search space, being explored by a myriad of different configurations (of organisms or machines). Configurations that survive, survive. The others are filtered out. Surviving configurations get to explore more of that search space and the process repeats. Over time, this leads to some pretty neat architectural advances (but any biochemist will agree there's a lot of horrible, unfixable spaghetti code in there as well).
We only get the impression of very high complexity and lots of interdependent processes because we look at a very mature ecosystem. Things would be easier to grasp if we were restricted to looking at very early microbes. The principles are the same, though.
No matter how it's explained, I still can't wrap my brain around how evolution produces complex systems. How do systems with interdependent processes and parts get produced by a process that seems to proceed stepwise?
Think of it like iterative developing a program by adding or modifying one line at a time, while still keeping the program runnable. You can start from a simple program and develop it into a complex program with this method, although it will be a very tedious and inefficient process compared to if you were allowed to rewrite multiple lines in one go. But evolution works in small increments.
For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…
So, nothing exploded and created everything? How come?
The biggest misconception about evolution is shared both opponents and proponents. Most often the discussion is about whether evolution is true or not. Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point. Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve. There are no finite answers in evolution, only observations of phenomena.…
I think you mean that the "theory of evolution via natural selection" is the best model we have to explain the observed phenomena of evolution. Analogous to the Newtownian theory of gravity explaining the mechanics of observed terrestrial and celestial gravity. Gravity and evolution are simply there, how they occur requires a theoretical explanation.
Quite interesting. It corrects well the statement "Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population." to: Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.... I think that's a very important clarification, because we may look around and see very diverse…
Would it make sense to turn it around and say "Natural selection is about unfit individuals in a population dying off"