Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Misconceptions about evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 172 posts

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#51

Post by maaku »

adsr wrote: post #37
b_emery wrote: post #17

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…

Of course claims about an after life are based on faith, that's true regardless if the claim is that there is or is not an after life.

Not necessarily. If we can adequately explain not just life but the sensation of consciousness - that personal identity which is said to persist into the afterlife - in terms of physical interactions which terminate and decompose when the body dies, then strictly speaking it requires additional unwarranted suppositions to assume that this explainable and now terminated physical phenomenon persisted and continued to operate in some hidden spiritual world. It requires implicit rejection of Occamian world view.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#52

Post by pmelendez »

> "Bacteria, HIV, malaria, and cancer have evolved resistance to our drugs."

Honest question... if HIV is a virus, and virus are not living forms [1], how can they evolve? In that case wouldn't be the host cell the one that evolved?

[1] http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#53

Post by mathattack »

tetrep wrote: post #38
aray wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew a few semi-religious scientists in the past. They were all in line with what we'd probably accept as scientific reasoning behind natural phenomena, but deferred to religion on more philosophical (and not physical) questions: "Why are we here?" "What's the meaning of life?" "Why should I be good towards other people?" (I know part of these are at least touched on by some of the humanities sciences - moral philo…

if they're willing to ignore huge swaths of divine text what makes the existential statements special? if someone made a list of statements, most of which were false but some of which were unverifiable why would anyone accept, as truth, the unverified claims? if anything accept part of the Bible, cherry picking, is worse (logically) than accepting all of it.

if anything accept part of the Bible, cherry picking, is worse (logically) than accepting all of it.

I'm not sure I follow this... Why is this so bad. Let's say that my view of the bible is a set of self-replicating instructions that were carried through time as culture. Today I deem some ideas helpful parts of my culture, and some not to so helpful. I choose to follow the former. Is this logically inconsistent?

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#54

Post by qwerta »

There are two funny things:

- Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory. Genetics, biochemistry and ethology are light years beyond Darwin. It is like discussing Copernicus while scientists are working on quantum gravity.

- Evolution does not disprove creation and vice versa. God could use evolution as a tool. And God could also create Earth with all those fossils underground just for a joke. :-)

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#55

Post by mcknz »

b_emery wrote: post #17

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…

The realms have different rules. An argument within/for/against a particular religious belief, such as a gut feeling or reference to a religious text, doesn't work in science. In a similar way, it doesn't make sense to use the rules of science to support/refute religion. To assert that there is no evidence for a religious belief is essentially a religious argument, not a scientific one.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#56

Post by meric »

dismiss21x wrote: post #36
RK wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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 observ…

I wouldn't say it's observed; no one has observed billions of years of evolution. That's why there is debate. Please don't compare to the observation of gravity; it's not even comparable.

I think it is comparable. We do have the fossil record, after all.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#57

Post by davidgerard »

aray wrote: post #33
ckluis wrote: post #11

My favorite one is: Evolution and Creationism should be given equal time in education. Not even the Catholic Church thinks Creationism should be taught (I'm Catholic if it matters) in school as science. From Wikipedia: Here is viewpoint of the Vatican's chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to…

I'm not sure why "not even the Catholic Church" comes into play (is it the standards bar for forcing religious topics in schools?) I'm from the bible belt of the USA, and I've only heard this from protestant christians (some of whom I'd use as the standards bar for the above).

It's only recently the Catholic Church has gone so nutso right-wing - in even recent decades they were heavy on the social justice, relatively speaking.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#58

Post by 001sky »

RK wrote: post #29
ThomPete wrote: post #23

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.…

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. 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 observ…

It is not (self evidently) true that evolution correctly models the origin of adaptations.[1] That is, the menu-creation ex ante selection is a "black box" model, and that is at best problematic, from a logical/mathematical/and "scientific" perspective. The randomness hypothesis is almost surely wrong here (as the mechanism of menu selction).

[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq....

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#59

Post by has2k1 »

dabernathy89 wrote: post #13

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?

Let me let you in on the little secret.

When you are backed into a corner, you accept whatever is left to explain the complexity at hand. Then you pretend that you understand it. Collect enough these "understandings" of complex stuff and you will be able make analogies between them or even offer "little secrets" for the uninitiated.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#60

Post by dragonwriter »

pmelendez wrote: post #52

> "Bacteria, HIV, malaria, and cancer have evolved resistance to our drugs." Honest question... if HIV is a virus, and virus are not living forms [1], how can they evolve? In that case wouldn't be the host cell the one that evolved? [1] http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/

> Honest question... if HIV is a virus, and virus are not living forms, how can they evolve?

The requirements for evolution are a subset of the requirements for "life", so its quite possible for things that are not alive to evolve.

> In that case wouldn't be the host cell the one that evolved?

Viruses can be a source of variation in the genetic code of living things that contributes to evolution in the living things, but that's a different effect than the evolution of the virus itself.

Post reply on HN