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

71–80 of 172 posts

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#71

Post by pmelendez »

davidgerard wrote: post #57
aray wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>"in even recent decades they were heavy on the social justice"

They are still very active in social justice activity. At least that is very true in poor zones of Latin America

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#72

Post by roarroar »

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…

Reason rests on fictions, too. For example objects/things don't exist. But without believing in them it's impossible to function. Religion also has to be evaluated functionally.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#73

Post by akiselev »

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/

No, because the host cell is generally used to produce more viruses and is then lysed to release them. HIV and other retroviruses use RNA to inject DNA strands into the host cell's nucleus where those new genes instruct the cell to produce more viruses. Even if the host cell splits, the genetic machinery is still there for the virus to reproduce.

Either way the end result is a bunch of new viruses each with their own genetic code that could have mutated.

AFAIK whether or not viruses are living organisms is the equivalent of programming language religions in biology and is quite controversial. I personally look at viruses as living organisms and consider "viral reproduction" amongst sexual and asexual reproduction.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#74

Post by jonathansizz »

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…

The "theory of evolution via natural selection" is itself another (very common) misconception about evolution. Don't equate evolution with natural selection; they are far from synonymous. In fact, we have good reason to think that most evolution is non-adaptive.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#75

Post by eeperson »

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…

It sounds like you feel there is an inherent conflict between science and religion (or am I misreading). I see no reason why this needs to be the case. Once you move beyond explanations for things that can make testable predictions, then you are out outside of science you have moved in to philosophy. At that point all explanations that don't contradict what is observed become equally valid/invalid.

Take for example the question more general question of whether or not there is a creator behind the universe. There is no real way to prove, or at least no one has come up with a way to do so, whether or not this is the case. As a result, either answer is equally valid/invalid.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#76

Post by CodeMage »

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.

Ask yourself a few analogous questions:

- How can you vote for or otherwise support a politician if you don't agree 100% on everything with that politician?

- If your friend enjoys the same music that you do, but not the same food, would that necessarily make you not go to a concert with that friend?

- How can you enjoy a book written by an author if you strongly disagree with that author's personal beliefs? Do those beliefs necessarily invalidate anything and everything that this hypothetical author writes? As a real life example, take Orson Scott Card: do his personal views about homosexuality make his Ender books any worse?

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#77

Post by davidgerard »

pmelendez wrote: post #71
davidgerard wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>"in even recent decades they were heavy on the social justice" They are still very active in social justice activity. At least that is very true in poor zones of Latin America

Yep. Even as an atheist and humanist, I am happy to commend Christians who do actual good for people :-)

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#78

Post by benched »

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…

As I see it, the basic flaw in the materialist worldview is this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/

It is also what leaves the door open for more transcendent views. Eastern religions, in particular, are founded on the basic idea that your everyday experience is illusory.

You dismiss religious beliefs as based on "essentially nothing". In fact, the basis of religious belief in the most general sense is conscious experience. The kinds of conscious experience that you would probably call hallucinations. But, referring again to the link above, you are probably disposed to call shared perceptions "real", and non-shared perceptions hallucinatory. Religiously, metaphysically, or even philosophically minded people might call that arbitrary. Chauvinistic even. We act like consensual reality is real because it's convenient, intuitive, and seems to get us good results in consensual reality.

You say "zero credible evidence of an afterlife." That's true, if you restrict yourself to what's usually considered "evidence" in science. Evidence that more than one person can perceive at the same time. But individuals can go further if they really want to see whether there's anything to see. Are you willing to dedicate yourself to a meditation practice for a long time? Psychedelic drugs? Flatliners (the 1990 movie)?

I'm not recommending that anyone do anything dangerous. Just pointing out that there are things you can observe first-hand, that aren't likely to be replicated in a study.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#79

Post by Udo »

dabernathy89 wrote: post #65
olavk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Maybe that is a fruitful way of looking at it. Take evolutionary algorithms, for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm).

Essentially you start with a random program and iterate on it using an evolutionary model. The point of these algorithms is precisely that an understanding and knowledge of the code base is not required. All that's necessary is some way of measuring the program's fitness for a task.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#80

Post by aaronbrethorst »

davidgerard wrote: post #57
aray wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The current Pope is pretty progressive. Case in point that I read earlier today:

    "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us,
    with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not
    just Catholics. Everyone! `Father, the
    atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!"
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021997332_apeuvati...
Post reply on HN