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

61–70 of 172 posts

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#61

Post by dabernathy89 »

vectorjohn wrote: post #18
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?

You're a programmer, right? A lot of people on here are. You know how when starting something completely from scratch, there is so much foundational work to do, making frameworks, helper libraries, classes, etc. You have to do all that stuff before your program can do much (assuming no third party libraries). Well, once your code base (or just your knowledge of existing libraries) is advanced enough, you can more eas…

Thanks, that's an interesting way of illustrating it.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#62

Post by johnchristopher »

Udo wrote: post #47
johnchristopher wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like this outlook because it's too close to "ignorance is bliss" theme.

Pardon me for not getting this, but how can what I wrote be interpreted as "ignorance is bliss"? Shouldn't the conclusion be the opposite of that?

I may very well be the one not getting it (english is not my first language and I am sleepy at the moment).

Allow me to try to rephrase your explanation: it states that religion act as a kind of shield for the brain[1] (this is bliss) while at the same time blinding him to hard facts[2] (this is ignorance). Did I read too much in your explanation or summarized too much ?

[1] external influences

[2] the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#63

Post by paddlepop »

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/

Evolution does not strictly apply to living organisms. Natural selection, which is what I think your referring to, as a mechanism for evolution relies on Mendelian inheritance. The only requirement for Mendelian inheritance is genetic material (DNA or RNA), which viruses obviously have.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#64

Post by davidgerard »

anywherenotes wrote: post #45
davidgerard wrote: post #12

Yeah, but if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys ? I bet you can't answer me that. (cough)

And the related question: If God made man from dirt, why is there still dirt?

O noes, you have just disproven biology!

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#65

Post by dabernathy89 »

olavk wrote: post #26
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?

Complex organs have developed from simpler organs in a series of small incremental improvements, while the organ all the way have been fully functional. 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 ine…

If you add to your analogy that you have no knowledge of the existing codebase, and you have no idea what you're adding or modifying, then you understand my difficulty grasping the concept. Thanks for the reply though!

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#66

Post by pmelendez »

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).

>"I'm not sure why "not even the Catholic Church" comes into play "

Because is a religion with the same Genesis book on the bible and it's an example of at least one religion (the root of Christianity) that doesn't believe in teaching Religion as a science

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#67

Post by conanbatt »

ahoy wrote: post #27
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…

I don't know the answer to this either, but I've seen this kind of compartmentalization in lots of very smart folks. I know a guy who's a brilliant optics engineer and has had success both in business and academia. He's not sold on climate change as a fact.

The fact that you used the word "sold" already implies to me its a matter of faith.

Climate change is a highly politicized and potentially corrupt push of an agenda. As Im not working on climate change or related sciences, all I can do is believe on what an alleged aggregate of scientist tell me, its pure faith.

Scientists and engineers are the new priests.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#68

Post by [deleted] »

ThomPete wrote: post #40
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…

perhaps yes and no. Gravity is a force you can measure, make experiments with and validate. You can use the scientific method to invalidate gravity. You can't do that with evolution and therefore you can't compare the theory of gravity with the theory of evolution the way I see it. But I might be wrong.

[deleted]

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#69

Post by Udo »

johnchristopher wrote: post #62
Udo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pardon me for not getting this, but how can what I wrote be interpreted as "ignorance is bliss"? Shouldn't the conclusion be the opposite of that?

I may very well be the one not getting it (english is not my first language and I am sleepy at the moment). Allow me to try to rephrase your explanation: it states that religion act as a kind of shield for the brain[1] (this is bliss) while at the same time blinding him to hard facts[2] (this is ignorance). Did I read too much in your explanation or summarized too much ? [1] external influences [2] the ability to fre…

No, that is sort of what I meant to say, except that I would never use the word bliss for describing the state of a host brain. You could argue about the meaning of ignorance, but I really don't think this catch phrase fits well with the statement I tried to make. Competitive inhibition is a more apt term for what's actually going on.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#70

Post by dabernathy89 »

Udo wrote: post #25
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?

Complex systems can originate from simple environments. If you're mathematically inclined, I invite you to read Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science", it does a great job of showing processes like this, for example with cellular automata. The key take-away is that complexity isn't necessarily the product of an even more complex birthing mechanism, but that complexity can and does frequently arise from simplicity, a…

Thanks, I'll check out that book.
Post reply on HN