99.9% Of a People Who Believe In Evolution Don't Understand It.

by Space Madness 89 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  redvip2000

  Scientists often use shorthand when writing about these things that give the impression they are talking about teleology but they are not.

  It is easier to say for example that, "a species of finch evolved bigger beaks IN ORDER to exploit tougher seeds".

  Yes, but it's still misleading. The English language has plenty of words to convey the idea without being that misleading. I'll take a shot at it:

  A species of finch evolved bigger beaks, and thus were able to exploit tougher seeds.

  Much better, IMO.

  It is assumed the reader understands the basics. As you rightly point out this is frequently not so.

  That's the first mistake. THere is no reason to assume anything. The basics in this case, is the very understanding of the process.
• 

  Apognophos

  Also I explicitly stated that it is impossible for DNA and bacteria to think, as some people suggest with adaptation to an environment and bacterial resistance.

  This is the core of the problem, besides your bad attitude. Nobody on here who advocated evolution was stating that organisms were choosing to evolve, as a conscious decision.

  While it would be understandable if a couple loosely-phrased sentences were the only communication over this subject that we had with you, you persisted in misunderstanding this even though some of us took a lot of time to explain how things like moths adapted to their increasingly sooty environment. Did you really, truly believe that we were telling you that the moths thought, "Uh-oh, not blending in so well, better get darker or at least have darker children!"

  Do you have such a low opinion of everyone's intelligence or just the people on this board?
• 

  Space Madness

  @Apognophos

  The majority of laymen believe evolution works that way. That's not just my opinion, several others on this thread have pointed that out as well.

  @snare&racket

  I don't understand your post? After you quote me you say "now you are claiming otherwise". What am I saying differently now from the paragraph you quoted? I still don't believe an environment can alter an organism's DNA nor do I believe bacteria becomes resistance to antibiotics due to exposure.
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  I think a problem is the title of the thread.

  In general, people who believe in evolution understand it very well. It's the disbelievers who have a faulty understanding of the mechanisms involved who then use that as an excuse to disagree, like you mentioned you yourself used to do.

  Plus, it's disingenuous to use a made up statistic like 99.9% when what is really meant is "the majority " or something similar. Statistics should only be used when they are actually real. We all do it from time to time, but it's a poor use of language.
• 

  cantleave

  I think a problem is the title of the thread....

  Yeah - I'd love to see the research supporting 99.9%
• 

  Apognophos

  Just for the record, I agree with the thread title itself. I might place the percentage at 98% ot 99% instead of 99.9%, but that's quibbling. So I agree that the majority of laymen just accept the scientific consensus unthinkingly, and don't really get how evolution works. But as I said, the posters here who were advocating evolution do understand how it works.

  To get back to the immediate topic, the environment does alter DNA by turning on/off various switches (epigenetics). It's true that the theory of evolution does not involve direct alteration of DNA by the environment. However, the effect is much the same as if it were. If the environment calls for a certain feature and it's possible for this feature to come about in a species, it will; and if a certain feature is "punished" by the environment (like white moths in a sooty environment), then the aspect of the DNA that causes that feature may drop out of the genome altogether once it is suppressed.

  For example, humans have a broken gene for producing vitamin C. It's not just turned off; it apparently no longer can operate. This is because the environment (including our diet) made it unneeded, so there was no incentive for it to stay operational, and random genetic copying errors caused it to break. In that sense you can absolutely say that the environment altered the DNA. It's an indirect cause and effect, but this was already understood by the posters here.
• 

  snare&racket

  SPACE MADNESS....

  No biology scientist EVER has claimed that bacteria 'think' as a mechanism to evolve. The only person to bring it up was youl I'll repeat the conversation we just had for you been as it is confusing for you. Again, bear in mind no scientist EVER claiming bacteria evolve by thinking.

  You: "How could bacteria resist antibiotics if they can't "think"?"

  your quote: A common misconception is that a mutation produces a novel adaptation precisely when a population “needs” it to confront a new environmental challenge. For example, many people mistakenly believe that antibiotics create resistance; that is, that resistance arises in bacteria in response to expo- sure to the drugs.

  Me:"The pressure or 'thinking' as you called it, quite incorrectly, is nothing more than the USE of antibiotics. By using them we change the enviroment"

  please note how this is exactly as the quote you added explained, though I think you misunderstood it as your motive is not to understand but undermine.

  you: "I explicitly stated that it is impossible for DNA and bacteria to think, as some people suggest with adaptation to an environment and bacterial resistance."

  me: "as some people suggest" .......Who?

  You are arguing about something NOBODY HAS EVER SAID and your own quote from a textbook is telling you the answer. It is RANDOM, there is no thought process, there is no 'need' for a solution that leads to it being found, it is PURE random mutation and when at RANDOM a deletion or nonsense mutation or tri nucelotide repeat leads to a change in the bacteria that BY CHANCE is a protection from the antibiotic, that genetic code is now going to be the most useful DNA in that enviroment, so that bacteria will replicate well and its genes will dominate in that region.

  All of this is 100% provable, all repeatable and all witnessed. All the biological mechanisms have been witnessed and explained fully. we can even evoke these changes ourselves they are THAT predictable.

  Christians call this micro evolution and don't deny it happens, because we SEE IT happening such as with antibiotics. You completly misunderstood your quote, it is not saying bacteria cant mutate a random useful advantage in the presence of an antibiotic, in fact is says the exact opposite in the last sentence, but it is saying it does not do it by thinking or by needing a solution, it is random.

  I figured you understood this as you quoted it so I felt you were being deceitful. But now I a wondering whether you understood your own post as you still don't comprehend what you have said wrong.
• 

  snare&racket

  Maybe this will help....

  "A common misconception is that a mutation produces a novel adaptation precisely when a population “needs” it to confront a new environmental challenge.

  For example, many people mistakenly believe that antibiotics create resistance, that is, that resistance arises in bacteria in response to exposure to the drugs."

  This quote you have is saying, there is NO thought process, the bacteria is NOT responding to the enviroment, it is a misconception to think it is a response to the antibiotics or that the antibiotics create the resistance.

  The mutation is a RANDOM mutation, it doesnt come about for any other reason than a random mistake in reading and writing the DNA. It happens in all cells, including ours, millions of times a day (hence cancers etc). If by random chance that mistake offers a benefit to the bacteria....e.g. in that it is resistant, to the antibiotics method of action, then the genes wil survive and replicate at high rates. But it all came about by chance! BUT the natural selection of those genes is not chance, it is logical. If the new gene's created by chance (random) are more suitable....they will survive in that enviroment (not random).

  That is all YOUR quote is saying. You stand/stood by the quote because you thought it was saying something else. It is NOT saying that antibiotic use does not lead to changes in bacterial evolution, the wording they used is correct and very specific, but it requires a BASIC understanding of evolution to comprehend what they are saying.

  I will say it one last time, I assume you no longer stand by your quote anymore been as you disagree with evolution (write to the author if you doubt me that it is defending evolution). So one more time....

  HUMBLE YOURSELF and buy a freaking science book..... that way you won't misunderstand the science you read.

  snare x

  p.s. if you were seeking to understand and not undermine, this embarrassment would not have happened. Be sincere about your search for answers, it is SO MUCH easier and takes far less time.
• 

  Apognophos

  As I focus more closely on the text that SM is quoting, I think there may be a decent reason for his confusion. I would like to make a daring suggestion (and may you other more scientifically-experienced posters smack me down if I'm wrong), that this statement from the textbook:

  many people mistakenly believe that antibiotics create resistance; that is, that resistance arises in bacteria in response to exposure to the drugs

  is misleadingly phrased. What do you guys think? Doesn't the resistance in fact arise in response to the drugs? Keep in mind, the text does not say "Many people mistakenly believe that antibiotics directly alter the DNA to create resistance." It also does not say "Many people mistakenly believe that a bacteria knowingly changes in response to antibiotics." It instead makes a broad statement which implies that the antibiotics do not have an effect on resistance, which is untrue.

  I think SM is partly being confused by the textbook's poor choice of words. The book should make clear (and maybe it does, subsequently) that antibiotics do lead to resistance by winnowing out non-resistant bacteria over multiple generations.

  Edit: I believe snare has said something similar to this while I was typing my post, as he wrote above, "the wording they used is correct and very specific, but it requires an BASIC understanding of evolution to comprehend what they are saying."
• 

  Apognophos

  I will say it one last time, I assume you no longer stand by your quote anymore been as you disagree with evolution (write to the author if you doubt me that it is defending evolution).

  I don't mean to interject, but just to be clear, I don't sense that SM is disagreeing with evolution or saying that the text disagrees with evolution. His point was that we were wrong about evolution, because he thinks his textbook's definition of evolution is different from what we have described in past threads.