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

101–110 of 172 posts

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#101

Post by bcoates »

standeven wrote: post #3

None of the evolution deniers that I've met would have the slightest interest in reading this list, but I suppose it's useful to quickly look up counter-arguments to their claims. A similar site with a greater focus on creationist claims can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

I don't think this is about convincing the "deniers" so much as curing misconceptions among the general public about how evolution works.

You don't have to be arguing from bad faith or cynicism to hold some of the mistaken beliefs listed. The stuff about phylogenies and how they relate to the "tree" graphs is particularly neat.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#102

Post by kansface »

maaku wrote: post #51
adsr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

No, it would not. Anything that exists outside the universe and time is not subject to conjecture of any sort. Applying logic to such a thing is meaningless; there is no reason for logic to exist outside of the universe. In other words, absolutely nothing meaningful can be claimed about an afterlife (unless such a thing exists within this universe which seems doubtful).

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#103

Post by toasterlovin »

prawn wrote: post #41
standeven wrote: post #3

None of the evolution deniers that I've met would have the slightest interest in reading this list, but I suppose it's useful to quickly look up counter-arguments to their claims. A similar site with a greater focus on creationist claims can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Sadly, many would have little interest in having their perspective challenged at all.

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." -John Kenneth Galbraith

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#104

Post by dllthomas »

toasterlovin wrote: post #98
dabernathy89 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Right, but if you had _billions_ of years, you could still write an amazing program, even if you have no knowledge of the codebase and no idea what you're modifying.

Billions of years running trillions of experiments in parallel.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#106

Post by smrtinsert »

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…

That's your opinion. There are plenty of people who feel that the concept of an afterlife is a very comforting one and would prefer to have it.

Unless you can prove that humanity is better off with statistical significance, please shut up about religion on hacker news! :)

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#107

Post by toasterlovin »

qwerta wrote: post #54

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. :-)

"Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory."

No, it is not. It continues to bear rich fruit to this day.

Actually, since Darwin's conclusions in On the Origin of Species remain largely intact to this day, their age makes them better, not worse.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#108

Post by [deleted] »

eeperson wrote: post #75
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 t…

[deleted]

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#109

Post by toasterlovin »

dllthomas wrote: post #104
toasterlovin wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but if you had _billions_ of years, you could still write an amazing program, even if you have no knowledge of the codebase and no idea what you're modifying.

Billions of years running trillions of experiments in parallel.

Exactly. The time scale is one of the most important parts to swallowing evolution on an intuitive level.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#110

Post by Perseids »

mcknz wrote: post #55
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.

Even if there are different realms, I don't see how I (personally) can use different ways of reasoning in these realms. I'm quite certain that believing in some afterlife (as opposed to total oblivion after death) would make me much happier. But I cannot choose to believe something that is wrong or at the very least totally arbitrary according to my usual logic. It feels no different to me than wanting to believe that there is no massive government surveillance, even though I have followed the news for the past few months.
Post reply on HN