The Most Common Misunderstandings About Evolution

RealClearScience ^ | February 20, 2016 | Paula Kover

[EveningStar]

Given its huge success in describing the natural world for the past 150 years, the theory of evolution is remarkably misunderstood. In a recent episode of the Australian series of "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here", former cricket star Shane Warne questioned the theory - asking "if humans evolved from monkeys, why haven't today's monkeys evolved"?

Similarly, a head teacher from a primary school in the UK recently stated that evolution is a theory rather than a fact. This is despite the fact that children in the UK start learning about evolution in Year 6 (ten to 11-year-olds), and have further lessons throughout high school. While the theory of evolution is well accepted in the UK compared with the rest of the world, a survey in 2005 indicated that more than 20% of the country's population was not sure about it, or did not accept it.

In contrast, there are not many people questioning the theory of relativity, or studies on the acceptance of the theory of relativity; possibly reflecting an acceptance that this is a matter for physicists to settle. Many studies have tried to determine why evolution is questioned so often by the general public, despite complete acceptance by scientists. Although no clear answer has been found, I suspect the common misconceptions described below have something to do with it.

[SampleMan]

The Zebra grazes the harder parts of the plant whereas the Wildebeest prefers the softer parts. A Zebra will move into an area of long grass before other herbivores and eat grass down to allow for new growth that is suitable for Wildebeest.

The zebra doesn't appear to get anything from the wildebeest, so not really symbiotic. Additionally, that is an excellent example of what I was talking about. The zebra eats what it eats because it desires to eat it, not "to allow for new growth that is suitable for Wildebeest."

It should read "Zebra do X, and that is beneficial to the wildebeest." Straight facts, no assertion of intent or design.

[csivils]

Actually, It appears that you find calling people nuts easier than defending a flawed scientific theory... which is why you focus on slinging mud rather than diving into the argument.

A prediction involves having some information to make a claim about some unknown information. Looking at both the animal and the environment at the start means that any “conclusions” are not a prediction but rather an opinion/explanation. It is not a complex concept.

[Sergio]

bkmk

[BroJoeK]

SampleMan: "What they do always have is a presumed function.
Tigers need stripes and that serves a purpose, but lions and jaguars do not need stripes."

So I take it, you are not asking for the philosophical distinction between "function" and "purpose", but are treating those words interchangeably.
That's fine.
I think I'll stick with the more practical word, "function".

You ask about lions and tigers, and the presumed function, or lack of it, of stripes.
So, first we notice that cats living in deep jungle are all spotted or striped, and that makes them more difficult to see when hidden amongst leaves & trees.
By contrast, cats living in more open & dry ranges are more plain colored.

If you ask why & how, then Occam's razor suggests the simplest natural answer: they evolved to take advantage of their environment.
If you ask, why didn't every species evolve the same features, the answer is: in many respects they did, for example, can you think of any cats with other than four legs?
Clearly some features apply universally.
As for other features like size & coloring, those must surely be adaptations for very specific environments.

Bottom line: science can only go so far, can only say so much given available evidence, but the basic idea that creatures adapt to their environments is well established, indeed is not controversial.
So why make a big issue of it?

SampleMan: "...but other features are just a guess."

Features which are not helpful quickly devolve in nature.
So, if we see no obvious reason for some characteristic, then the next most likely explanation is: because females like it (i.e., birds of paradise), or sexual competition (horns on rams).

Consider the devolution of whale legs:

[BroJoeK]

SampleMan: "The zebra doesn't appear to get anything from the wildebeest, so not really symbiotic."

Oh, but Zebras do get a huge advantage from browsing amongst the Wildebeests -- protection from predators.
And since they not only don't compete for the same food, and actually help grow food preferred by wildebeests, that can easily be called "symbiotic".

SampleMan: "The zebra eats what it eats because it desires to eat it, not 'to allow for new growth that is suitable for Wildebeest.' "

But that is the case with virtually every symbiotic relationship in nature.
One species does what it does for its own reasons, but it turns out to directly help another species, so we call it symbiotic.
For a discussion and list of various types of symbiosis, see this link.

SampleMan: "It should read 'Zebra do X, and that is beneficial to the wildebeest.'
Straight facts, no assertion of intent or design."

Again, you're splitting hairs on definitions of words.
Of course it's impossible to say that nature "intends" this, or "plans" that, or does something else for a conscious "reason".
Nature itself is not conscious, and neither are most creatures, so their own "purpose" is not something we can attribute to them.
But we certainly can observe results, and notice how one process contributes to something else, and call that symbiosis.
And of course, I attribute all of it to God's plan, His purposes & reasons, regardless of any conscious intentions, or lack of, in nature.

[SampleMan]

You are simply being obstinate.

Watch your Discovery Channel pseudo science and be happy.

[BroJoeK]

csivils: "It appears that you find calling people nuts easier than defending a flawed scientific theory..."

But you have not made a coherent or cogent case I can respond to, just babbled nonsense, swinging your "circular" sword left and right, at whatever presents itself.
Indeed, the only targets you've actually struck are all straw-men.
Calling such things "nuts" is not an insult, FRiend, it's just fact.
So deal with it.

csivils: "Looking at both the animal and the environment at the start means that any 'conclusions' are not a prediction but rather an opinion/explanation."

That's it? That's your big case?
Are you are here to tell me, for example, that it's not correct to say: a lion's long sharp teeth are there to help it take down game?
And you think this is incorrect because I'm looking at both the cause (teeth) and the effect (lunch) at the same time?
And the reason it's incorrect is because the reasoning is "circular"?

And you wonder why I call that "nuts"?

[BroJoeK]

SampleMan: "You are simply being obstinate."

You are simply being obstinate.
And incoherent.

[csivils]

Looking at the lions teeth and the prey at the start means it is a not a prediction. Not being a prediction means there is no hypothesis, which in turn means it is not science.

You have lost that argument, go find new material.

[BroJoeK]

csivils: "Looking at the lions teeth and the prey at the start means it is a not a prediction.
Not being a prediction means there is no hypothesis, which in turn means it is not science."

Since you don't like the word "nuts", I'll use a more technical term: insane.
You obviously know nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about what science is or is not, so you babble incoherently imagining you have some weapon to wield against it.
You don't, your weapon is a handful of wet noodles, FRiend.

So let's start at the beginning:
In science, a scientifically confirmed observation, such as our example here of lions eating lunch, is called a fact.
Explanations of whys & hows about such observations are called hypotheses.
Hypotheses are used to make predictions which can then be confirmed or falsified by future observations.

So, if we observe lions eating lunch, we note their long sharp teeth play a big role in that.
That's not a hypothesis, it's a scientific fact.
Yes, if we had never before seen a lion take down its prey, we might hypothesize those teeth played a big role there too.
Our hypothesis' prediction could then be confirmed, or falsified, by some future observation.
But since lions have often been observed taking down prey, there's no hypothesis involved here -- instead, it's just another confirmed observation = fact.

If you'd like an example of how a scientific hypothesis became a confirmed theory and is now an observed fact, then consider:

Among the ancient Greeks were astronomers who hypothesized that the Earth was spherical and rotated.
One even accurately estimated the Earth's circumference using observations of shadows in wells.

That ancient hypothesis became confirmed theory when ships began sailing around the world, setting off toward the West, arriving home from the East.

In modern times, that confirmed theory of a spherical Earth became scientifically observed fact as satellites began taking photos from outer space.

csivils: "You have lost that argument, go find new material."

But you have made no real argument, just babbled incoherently.
So there's nothing here for me to "lose".

[SampleMan]

Whatever.

You believe your little fairy tales that evolution identifies an unfilled niche that will exist millions of years in the future, and then designs a species to perfectly fit that niche, and every characteristic of every animal is perfectly adapted for a purpose.

No set of rules that qualify a species as successful or non-successful except for its existence, yet that existence apparently wasn't "good enough" at any point during its evolution. Species "A" that has a very small population is just as perfect as species "B" that has a very large population, and the evolutionary characteristics of both are proven to be perfectly adapted by the presumption of natural selection. Like saying the worst team in the league and the best team in the league both have the perfect mix of players, because their existence proves it.

You simultaneously argue that every species in extent is perfectly evolved to fit its niche, so are you at the end of evolution?

You regurgitate the assertion that tigers are striped "because jungle" and lions are tan "because savanna", but you don't see striped zebras of the savanna and tan monkeys of the jungle as a contradiction. Just reach into the magic presumption bucket, and there is a reason for everything, even colorful feather patterns in a color blind world. No, I really can't cotton your silliness anymore. Go back to your simplistic Science that they dole out to elementary children, and enjoy the nonsense. That is what entertainment is for.

[csivils]

“But since lions have often been observed taking down prey, there’s no hypothesis involved here — instead, it’s just another confirmed observation = fact.

If you’d like an example of how a scientific hypothesis became a confirmed theory and is now an observed fact, then consider:”

You acknowledge your example is not a hypothesis. You also acknowledge that it takes a hypothesis to become a theory...

So in your own words, you concede the point that your truism stories of facts in reality are not scientific support for any hypothesis (or theory) of evolution.

But that doesn’t stop you from climbing atop your and lecturing about observable facts and truism as if they somehow lend support for a theory.

If you wish to be science, step up, make some predictions and live or die by the accuracy. Evolution instead avoids exactly that. The fittest survive because they were fit and thus survive is indeed circular. There is no possible case where survival can’t be tied to being the “fittest”. An asteroid could wipe out 99% of the earth, and the fact something decided to stand in just the right place would be proclaimed as evidence of evolution.

If there is no possible way to prove it wrong, it isn’t science.

[BroJoeK]

SampleMan: "You believe your little fairy tales that evolution identifies an unfilled niche that will exist millions of years in the future, and then designs a species to perfectly fit that niche, and every characteristic of every animal is perfectly adapted for a purpose."

Of course I never said anything of the sort, so where do you get this cr*p, and why do you accuse me of it?
What exactly is your problem, FRiend?

SampleMan: "No set of rules that qualify a species as successful or non-successful except for its existence, yet that existence apparently wasn't 'good enough' at any point during its evolution."

"Success" or "non-success" meaning what, survival and large population?
But then conditions change -- climates grow colder, warmer, wetter, dryer, new predators, etc. -- and now species must either adapt or die out.
So what exactly is your problem with that?

SampleMan: "Species "A" that has a very small population is just as perfect as species "B" that has a very large population, and the evolutionary characteristics of both are proven to be perfectly adapted by the presumption of natural selection.
Like saying the worst team in the league and the best team in the league both have the perfect mix of players, because their existence proves it."

Well, first of all: one difference between nature and ball teams is that regardless of how many games the Cubbies lose this year, they will be back next season, perhaps under new management, but wearing the same uniforms.
By stark contrast, in nature, when you lose, you lose everything, you're gone, extinct, finis.
You don't come back "next season" to try again.

But your main hang-up appears to be your notion of "perfect adaption" due to natural selection.
You have now at least twice accused me of advocating such a thing when in fact I've said nothing like it, and have already explained why that is not the case.
To begin with: your whole idea of "perfect" is ridiculous, because nothing in nature is "perfect".
"Perfect" is a human concept, indeed, it's a theological term which applies, correctly, only to God.
But in Genesis one, when God looks at His creations, he sees that they are "good", not "perfect".
And "good" can easily be seen as "good enough", which certainly does describe evolution and natural selection: "good enough", never "perfect".

Every life-form we see is good enough to survive in its current ecological niche.
If & when that niche changes, the life-form may adapt enough to continue surviving, or may not and so go extinct.
The fossil record tells us that circa 99% of all pre-historic species are now extinct, replaced by newer, upgraded models, so to speak.

So, why are you so hung up on your idea of "perfect"?

SampleMan: "You simultaneously argue that every species in extent is perfectly evolved to fit its niche, so are you at the end of evolution?"

But of course I've never argued such a thing, so why do you keep saying it?
No creature is "perfectly" evolved, every creature is evolved "enough" to survive under existing conditions.
When those conditions change, then the creature will either adapt or die out.
Why is that so difficult for you to "get"?

SampleMan: "You regurgitate the assertion that tigers are striped 'because jungle' and lions are tan 'because savanna', but you don't see striped zebras of the savanna and tan monkeys of the jungle as a contradiction."

Sure, we might well suppose that a lurking predator needs camouflage different from that of a fleeing prey heard.
Zebra stripes, for example, are said to confuse predators when the herd is running.
And species like the nearly extinct Golden Lion Tamarin sort of illustrate the point that species well adapted to one environment don't always do so well when conditions change.
But so what?
What is your point here?
Are you hoping to "prove" that scientists don't know everything about everything?
If so, then congratulations, but since that issue was never in dispute, you've "won" nothing.

What is your real point?

SampleMan: "Just reach into the magic presumption bucket, and there is a reason for everything, even colorful feather patterns in a color blind world.
No, I really can't cotton your silliness anymore."

But FRiend, it's you who are being infinitely silly, by raising non-issues, disputing simple facts and making endless false accusations.
So, why are you doing that?

And whoever told you birds are color blind?
They're not:

"Birds, unlike humans but like fish, amphibians and reptiles, have four types of colour receptors in the eye.
One of these receptors gives some species of birds the ability to perceive not only the range visible by humans, but also the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, and other adaptations allow for the detection of polarised light or magnetic fields.
Birds have proportionally more light receptors in the retina than mammals, and more nerve connections between the photoreceptors and the brain."

[BroJoeK]

csivils: "So in your own words, you concede the point that your truism stories of facts in reality are not scientific support for any hypothesis (or theory) of evolution."

Total unmitigated rubbish.
Who is teaching you this cr*p, did you learn it in some school, or invent it all by yourself?
Do you fantasize you're making some honest conversation and not simply a totally dishonest misuse of the English language?
So, I ask again: what exactly is your problem, FRiend?

csivils: "But that doesn’t stop you from climbing atop your and lecturing about observable facts and truism as if they somehow lend support for a theory."

But of course, scientifically verified facts can confirm or falsify theories -- that's what science is, it's how science works.
So, by what conceivable circuitous "logic" can you deny the very basis of science?
I ask again: what exactly is your problem here?

csivils: "If you wish to be science, step up, make some predictions and live or die by the accuracy. Evolution instead avoids exactly that."

In my posts #82 and #86 I posted a link to this partial listing of evolution's predictions, confirmed by observed facts.
So your accusation here, as so much else you've posted, is simply false.

csivils: "The fittest survive because they were fit and thus survive is indeed circular.
There is no possible case where survival can’t be tied to being the “fittest”.
An asteroid could wipe out 99% of the earth, and the fact something decided to stand in just the right place would be proclaimed as evidence of evolution."

Your use of the phrase, "survival of the fittest" is inappropriate, because it is not scientifically accurate and is never used by scientists.
An accurate phrase would be, "survival of the adapted", meaning those who are best suited for their environment.
When environments change, those previously adapted may no longer be well enough adapted to survive.
Indeed, that is the natural history of the Earth, as evidenced in fossil records.
So, I ask again: what exactly is your problem with this?

csivils: "If there is no possible way to prove it wrong, it isn’t science."

The only things in science which cannot be "proved wrong" are confirmed observations, aka "facts".
Every hypothesis can be falsified, every theory is accepted only conditionally, until some other data may come along to disprove it.
So, in reality no scientific hypothesis or theory is ever 100% "settled".

But your repeated assertions that somehow facts don't confirm or falsify theories is just wrong, big time, and you need to get over that.

So I ask again: what exactly is your problem all this?

[BroJoeK]

Oooooops:

"...a fleeing prey heard" = a fleeing prey herd.

[csivils]

My problem seems to be you cannot honestly respond to what I wrote rather than what you know how to answer.

Predictions on the what would be found in the fossil records are a start towards support, unlike your cute lion and zebras in the safari stories. The issue with those predictions are that like other aspects of evolution, they were not disproveable. I can predict we will find a dinosaur shaped like a Toyota pickup truck. Not likely to be confirmed, but neither is it possible to proven false because I can keep saying, not yet, not yet.

If you have enough people making predictions that cannot be disproven, some will hit. I’m not impressed. Your link is at least much closer to science than the junk you post here.

[csivils]

Challenge: since every hypothesis in science can be falseafiable, please provide ten falseafiable hypothesis for evolution and what conditions would be acceptable proof it was false. You cannot do it, evolution doesn’t go there.

The closest I have heard was the claim of a rabbit in the crustacious period, but I reject that. The response would be to rearrange the fossil tree or dispute the geological evidence. This has been done many times already.

So since you claim I don’t understand, this should be easy. Otherwise, pack it up and find easier prey for your dribble.

[BroJoeK]

csivils: "My problem seems to be you cannot honestly respond to what I wrote rather than what you know how to answer that I demand honest answers to my dishonest questions."

There, fixed it for you.
If you'd ask honest questions, you'd get honest answers.
If you ask dishonest questions, then the answers will still be honest, just not to what you've asked.

csivils: "Predictions on the what would be found in the fossil records are a start towards support, unlike your cute lion and zebras in the safari stories."

Again: predictions on what would be found, can be found here.
As for "cute lion and zebras" stories: you asked and I answered.
You don't like the answer, so you declare it "cute" or "circular", case closed.

But your claim, in effect, that facts don't support theory, if those facts were known before the theory was formed, your claim is simply evidence of ignorance.
That's because, by definition, a scientific hypothesis is formed to explain the why's of known facts.
The test of hypotheses is whether, first, does it actually explain all known facts, and second, can it predict as yet unknown evidence?
For the evolution hypothesis, the answer was "yes" to both, thus confirming evolution as scientific theory.

And your problem with this is what, exactly?

csivils: "I can predict we will find a dinosaur shaped like a Toyota pickup truck.
Not likely to be confirmed, but neither is it possible to proven false because I can keep saying, not yet, not yet."

Sure, but that is not the nature of evolution predictions confirmed in the list I linked to above, so your point is irrelevant.

csivils: "If you have enough people making predictions that cannot be disproven, some will hit.
I’m not impressed.
Your link is at least much closer to science than the junk you post here."

But, first, there are no such predictions used to confirm scientific hypotheses.
So, does it not bother your conscience that your accusations are all false?
Surely there's some function in your mind which tells you: don't say cr*p that's not true, isn't there?
Then why do you keep doing it?

Second, that link has been part of my argument from the beginning.
The fact that you previously refused to look at it is not my fault, and makes nothing I've posted less valid.

[BroJoeK]

csivils: "Challenge: since every hypothesis in science can be falseafiable, please provide ten falseafiable hypothesis for evolution and what conditions would be acceptable proof it was false.
You cannot do it, evolution doesn’t go there."

But of course I can, and have already done so, now several times, though apparently you suddenly "can't remember" reading the link.

So what exactly is your problem with it?

csivils"The closest I have heard was the claim of a rabbit in the crustacious period, but I reject that.
The response would be to rearrange the fossil tree or dispute the geological evidence.
This has been done many times already."

Crustacious period??
Perhaps you intended Cretaceous period, from about 145 to 66 million years ago?

Yes, the fossil record does show small rodent-like mammals during the Cretaceous, but none yet that would clearly qualify as modern rabbits.
Indeed, there are no modern forms (i.e, elephants) scientifically confirmed from the Cretaceous, or any other more ancient period.

In fact, the fossil record is consistent enough that if an exception is claimed, it can be assumed false until rigorously proved true.
Consider: I've mentioned before natural events such as rock-slides which can move our hypothetical rabbit bones from the top stratum of a geological column to one much lower down, thus making it appear older that it really was.
And there are other perfectly natural processes which can produce the same result, all of which would have to be ruled out before your alleged "Cretaceous rabbit" could be accepted as confirmed.

And that has never happened.

csivils: "So since you claim I don’t understand, this should be easy.
Otherwise, pack it up and find easier prey for your dribble."

But the reason you don't understand is because you refuse to look at the evidence which is there to be seen.
That's why you can do nothing here except dribble nonsense, FRiend.

[csivils]

Out of the “examples” in your link, the majority predict that a fossil would be found.

Two issues:

1. Will be found cannot be falsified.
2. If it was proven false, the answer would be to blame the current fossil tree data, not the theory.

Even the example of the bone near the jaw could go either way. The bone being there is proof, but if the bone was missing it would be proclaimed as an example of a useless body part being evolved away.

So I ask again for something falseafiable and what you would consider to to be acceptable proof to falsify. Your example link only had predictions, not examples of what could be falsified or what would be acceptable.