

Misconceptions about evolution - stiff
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

======
b_emery
_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 someone wrote down 1000
yrs ago), how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in
one domain, and then not require this in another? We have absolutely zero
credible evidence of a creator, an afterlife, or Santa Claus. Pick your
religion, what method do you use to evalute it's 'factualness' vs some other
religion? Usually the answer is that it's what you were first exposed to. This
world would be much better off without the concept of an afterlife. Focus on
the here and now, it's all we get.

~~~
eeperson
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.

~~~
akiselev
Science is far more than "testable predictions" and covers an entire method
that we have found to be the best and only way to understand reality with
timid certainty. Science itself is basically a subfield of epistemology and it
ties together both WHAT we know and WHY we actually know it instead of simply
believe it. Science is dedicated to finding out what reality is (as best as
mathematics or other abstract structures can describe it at least) and that
sets up a class of rigor for certainty which religion can simply not touch.
Also, built into science is a feedback loop that constantly reevaluates what
it means to be certain and tries to tie that certainty to the real world
through engineering, which, again, religion cannot even begin to attempt.

What we call science today is a formalization of what humans have been doing
for tens of thousands of years: looking for patterns and relationships in
cause and effect. The very act of making the first wheel, paper out of papyrus
thousands of years before the lumber industry, or a calendar by looking at the
stars is an act of scientific exploration that probes not just the natural
world, but how we discover what the natural world really is. Over time that
methodology has included into our cultural knowledge things like gravity and
horticulture while excluding things like rain dances and homeopathic medicine.

In the end, you either accept the rigor and structure on knowledge and
certainty developed by science and the scientific method (which, by the way,
created modern civilization as you see it today) or you don't. If you accept
it, religion by its very definition (supernatural and all that) conflicts with
science. If you don't, then there is a basic difference in core assumptions
and there really is no argument.

~~~
eeperson
I agree completely with your first two paragraphs. I'll even buy the first
sentence of your last paragraph. However, I fail to see why religion
inherently conflicts with science. It is in no way clear that the scientific
method can be applied to everything. Religion, or one of many other arbitrary
philosophies, can fill in the parts that science does not cover.

If you start with the hypothesis that the universe was constructed by a
conscious creator, how do you address that scientifically? As far as I can
tell, the answer is, you can't.

~~~
akiselev
You can't start with the hypothesis that "the universe was constructed by a
conscious creator" until you have some clear evidence that such a hypothesis
is warranted. This is where science conflicts with religion. If you're going
to say something exists, or that a certain event or entity caused an effect,
you have to prove it. Just because we do not yet understand multiverses (or
whatever is out there) and what happened before the big bang, just because we
do not yet have sensors to see beyond the scope of space-time, does not let
any self proclaimed philosopher fill in the gaps with whatever they happen to
read from the nearest religious text.

It doesn't matter whether you call yourself a theologian, philosopher, or
scientist, if you're going to make an assertion or assumption, you have to
back it up. If you don't, you operate outside of the human body of knowledge
that can be confirmed as true, or even remotely accurate.

~~~
eeperson
That doesn't make sense. Once you have clear evidence of something, it is no
longer a hypothesis. You can start with any hypothesis you want. Of course if
you expect something to be treated as scientific fact you need clear evidence.
Until you get clear evidence, it is a matter of philosophy, and you can fill
it with anything that doesn't contradict the known facts.

~~~
akiselev
I didn't say evidence of the hypothesis, I said "evidence that the hypothesis
is WARRANTED" which is a very big difference. If apples don't fall from trees
and matter is not attracted to other matter then the gravity hypothesis has no
evidence for it to even be considered! We see apples fall and planets orbit
and matter attracting other matter and so we think, there must be something
there! So we investigate and only after much testing do we say that the
hypothesis is scientific fact within the bounds it was tested.

>> Until you get clear evidence, it is a matter of philosophy, and you can
fill it with anything that doesn't contradict the known facts.

NO YOU CAN'T. Why? Because the nonsense ("philosophy") you fill it with STILL
REQUIRES EVIDENCE when you claim that something positively certainly EXISTS
such as a creator of the universe. You can claim you HYPOTHESIZE that there
exists a creator, but it is on YOU to prove that a creator exists, not on
anyone else to disprove it, especially when the scientific body of knowledge,
both theoretical and experimental, shows no evidence and no sign of a creator
outside of humans projecting their own desires.

~~~
eeperson
If a hypothesis doesn't contradict the known facts, how do you determine if it
is warranted?

You only require evidence if you expect others to believe the same thing. I'm
not arguing that anyone should believe in any religion. I'm arguing that a
scientist can hold religious beliefs without conflict.

> the scientific body of knowledge, both theoretical and experimental, shows
> no evidence and no sign of a creator outside of humans projecting their own
> desires.

This seems like it would strongly depend on who you ask. I'm not even sure how
you would come up with a criteria for this (although maybe that is just
limitations in my own imagination).

------
anywherenotes
Quite interesting. It corrects well the statement "Natural selection is about
survival of the very fittest individuals in a population." to: Though
"survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival
of the fit enough" is more accurate.
[http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq....](http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b6)

I think that's a very important clarification, because we may look around and
see very diverse population with very diverse handicaps - from mental to
physical, and question how it could be that "survival of the fittest" let all
this happen.

Information is also organized really well - short paragraphs, easy to consume,
with links to more details in some sections. Target audience is probably
someone who wants a few questions answered, but not a creationist or a biology
scientist.

~~~
rdtsc
> Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection,
> "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate

Would it make sense to turn it around and say "Natural selection is about
unfit individuals in a population dying off"

~~~
liber8
The most accurate way to phrase it would be to say that "natural selection is
about less fit individuals having a decreased chance of passing on their
genes."

Evolution is really about which genes are passed on to the next generation.
Most of the population at any given time is going to be less-fit than the
fittest (by definition). That doesn't mean they don't pass their genes on.
While totally unfit people may not be able to pass on their genes at all,
many, if not most, of a generally less-fit population will pass on their genes
at least one generation. Depending on the quality of the mate they are able to
obtain, their genes may not go further than the one generation, or they may
keep going for many generations. On average, the less-fit genes will "die off"
but this isn't always the case, for many reasons.

------
ckluis
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 teach it in
schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history
is taught, not science." Cardinal Paul Poupard added that "the faithful have
the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer,
just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an
expert voice in humanity." He also warned of the permanent lesson we have
learned from the Galileo affair, and that "we also know the dangers of a
religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to
fundamentalism." Fiorenzo Facchini, professor of evolutionary biology at the
University of Bologna, called intelligent design unscientific, and wrote in
the January 16–17, 2006 edition L'Osservatore Romano: "But it is not correct
from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while
pretending to do science.... It only creates confusion between the scientific
plane and those that are philosophical or religious." Kenneth R. Miller is
another prominent Catholic scientist widely known for vehemently opposing
Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design.

~~~
aray
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).

~~~
davidgerard
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.

~~~
pmelendez
>"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

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

------
mjt0229
I would point anyone who subscribes to any of the several current fad diets to
this one:
[http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq....](http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a8)

~~~
darkchasma
What fad diets are you referring to?

~~~
mjt0229
Any diet that is based on an unsubstantiated claim that "humans have not
evolved to digest X" where X is something that humans have been eating for
thousands of years. Paleo comes to mind, but there are others. The claim made
by these diets isn't structurally invalid, but often the claims are made
without any investigation and are substantiated by anecdotal evidence that
people feel better when eliminating X from their diet. That's fine, but that's
not the same thing as being incompatible from an evolutionary standpoint.

------
standeven
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](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html)

~~~
es20641
As someone who believes in both an intelligent designer creating the world,
and micro (but not macro) evolution, I am extremely interested in reading
this.

I just thought I would let you know :)

~~~
standeven
If you're genuinely interested in reading this and accepting facts that may
challenge your beliefs, then I applaud you.

Here's some reading to get you started:
[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html)

------
dabernathy89
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?

~~~
vectorjohn
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 easily combine pieces of it with relatively
small changes to the code. You can mix and match parts and the result will be
something very complex that may be based on person-years worth of work while
only taking a few minutes to assemble.

Pieces of code can be removed from the final product with a one line change.
While the code still exists in the final product, it isn't referenced
anywhere.

These are a couple of analogies that help me think about it. They don't
explain everything, but it should be enough to make clear that just because
evolution works by "stepwise" changes that doesn't mean one step can't create
huge differences.

~~~
dabernathy89
Thanks, that's an interesting way of illustrating it.

------
davidgerard
Yeah, but if humans came from monkeys, _why are there still monkeys_? I bet
you can't answer me that.

(cough)

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

~~~
davidgerard
O noes, you have just disproven biology!

------
jcmoscon
So, nothing exploded and created everything? How come?

~~~
noonespecial
You're at least asking the question at the right level. Most people get bogged
down arguing about how the something that already was became different stuff
that was. "Why is there something and not nothing at all?" is an excellent
philosophical base to start building a cosmology on.

~~~
es20641
I was just thinking this when I read your comment. It is probably the largest
thing that is holding me to my faith in an a God.

Whether or not evolution is true, it explains _how_ our world was created, but
not why.

~~~
noonespecial
Just remember science is about what and how, when you get to stuff like why,
it's philosophy. 90% of all of the ridiculous arguments that seem to happen
around this subject appear due to the inability to keep these separate.

------
ThomPete
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. But
those observations best describe the biological world.

~~~
RK
_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
observed terrestrial and celestial gravity. Gravity and evolution are simply
there, how they occur requires a theoretical explanation.

~~~
dismiss21x
I wouldn't say it's observed; no one has observed billions of years of
evolution. That's why there is debate. Please don't compare to the observation
of gravity; it's not even comparable.

~~~
meric
I think it is comparable. We do have the fossil record, after all.

~~~
ThomPete
That does not allow you to conclude that evolution is true the way that you
can conclude gravity is true/factual.

------
dsego
I detest evolution. Beings suffering, trapped in limited bodies and minds,
forced to kill for survival and plagued with diseases. It's horrible that a
person's quality of life relies on the results of a silly genetic lottery.
It's a cosmic joke, I tell you.

What have these creatures done wrong to deserve such ridicule?

[http://wtfevolution.tumblr.com](http://wtfevolution.tumblr.com)

------
gohrt
Publishing a long list of misconceptions is a really bad way to destroy them.
Readers will skim and just remember the headlines, all of which are false
statements.

Spread facts, not "myths"

~~~
lake99
> Spread facts, not "myths"

I think this guy [1], with his PhD thesis on the topic, would beg to differ.

Also, I don't think the website's sole purpose is to _destroy_ them
(misconceptions/people?). Some of us lay people who are knowledgeable, but
have learnt the wrong factoid, for one reason or another, could still benefit
from it.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY_o4A1wzsg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY_o4A1wzsg)

~~~
doorhammer
Yeah. I haven't had time to read the list (I plan on reading it later, ) but
the tone from the intro didn't seem to be concerned about destroying people.

I'm personally in the camp of folks that picks up information about evolution
as I go, since it's not really related to anything I do in my day to day, and
I appreciate a concise description of possible misconceptions.

------
pmelendez
> "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/](http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Honest question... if HIV is a virus, and virus are not living forms, how
> can they evolve?

The requirements for evolution are a subset of the requirements for "life", so
its quite possible for things that are not alive to evolve.

> In that case wouldn't be the host cell the one that evolved?

Viruses can be a source of variation in the genetic code of living things that
contributes to evolution in the living things, but that's a different effect
than the evolution of the virus itself.

------
robomartin
Well, as far as I am concerned it is a simple matter of people not being
intellectually prepared to understand the theory. I am not saying this to be
elitist. Not at all.

I had a conversation with a guy at a xmas party last year. I don't have a clue
how we went where we went but we ended up talking about how "human wizards"
can figure out the position of the moon every day and write an app to show
you. To this guy this was no different from magic. There is no way in the
universe that anyone is going to make a good case in favor of the theory of
evolution to this person until he elevates himself a few rungs in the
educational ladder. That's just a fact.

What about scientists who claim to believe in creationism? For the most part I
see it this way: If you are a nobody scientist with no hopes of becoming
anyone at all, what is the easiest way to become someone? Thank you Jesus!
I've met and have spoken to a few such "scientists" who, for example, teach at
religious schools. You can see right through them. They are virtual gods
within those organizations. They are elevated to prestigious standings within
that community. They are held as proof that someone crossed the proverbial
isle and, by the way, he is a honest-to-god scientist. No, they are not. They
are business men. And quite smart if you ask me. If you don't see an upshot to
your scientific career, go to a religious university and proclaim you've seen
the light. They'll have you writing books in short order.

Then there are guys like Ben Carson, the ex-Johns Hopkins surgeon republicans
are parading around. The guy is obviously very smart yet he is religious to a
ridiculous degree. I like a lot of his ideas. The problem is that every third
sentence is about religion. I don't know much about him so can't really opine
beyond saying that people who are constantly praising god and talking about
how everything is preordained and that they are god's tools, etc. scare the
crap out of me. Not a huge step from there to Iran. Is he playing a mental
game because of his political aspirations? Maybe. Republicans need to realize
they are loosing a huge chunk of the population for putting the bible in front
of everything they say and do. I digress.

I am looking forward to the lecture [0] at Caltech on the 20th given by
Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer. Should be interesting. Anyone going?

[0] [http://www.richarddawkins.net/events/2013/10/21/fall-book-
to...](http://www.richarddawkins.net/events/2013/10/21/fall-book-
tour-2013-cal-tech-with-michael-shermer)

------
qwerta
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. :-)

~~~
Udo
None of these things are funny or true for that matter.

 _> Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory._

Evolution as an abstract model is pretty old, but it's not likely to ever be
outdated. To this day, it describes accurately what is going on with any kind
of adaptive system, not only in biology but also computer science and
information theory, and one could make some convincing arguments for physics
as well.

 _> Genetics, biochemistry and ethology are light years beyond Darwin._

It's true that Darwin didn't necessarily know much about the inner workings of
what he was observing. All he could do is make the actual observations, and
reason about them. This led to a key idea about how organisms develop, and it
is this idea that became part of the basic tool set of any scientist, it's
right up there with Pythagoras and Newton. Genetic and biochemical research
didn't really exist in Darwin's time, but the principles he described are
found everywhere you look in these fields. And if it hadn't been for Darwin,
someone else would have found this out, it became gradually more inescapable
the more data we gathered. In fact, today it wouldn't be called much of an
achievement at all, since the mechanism is so obvious and ubiquitous whenever
you look at bio data.

 _> \- God could use evolution as a tool. And God could also create Earth with
all those fossils underground just for a joke._

Those two are actually somewhat mutually exclusive. Either you believe that
some kind of deity "uses" evolution as a tool, at which point people should
ask themselves what the point of having gods is if they're not actually doing
anything measurable at all.

The second point, although you meant it as a joke, is actually harder to argue
with - because it leaves reason so far behind it becomes difficult to have any
meaningful discussion about it at all: there is nothing in principle to say
against the argument that our whole environment and history could be
manufactured. We would have no way of knowing that, in fact there would be no
way of knowing the actual age of the universe. It could be 2 seconds old in
that case. All we have to reason against this approach is an argument from
plausibility and Occam's razor.

~~~
qwerta
> Evolution as an abstract model is pretty old, but it's not likely to ever be
> outdated.

But it is outdated. Survival of the fittest is gross oversimplification and it
is holding back more complex theories, which could provide better results.
Wanna explain how virus interacts with human body? Forget chemistry, you will
have to butcher your theory with terms like 'fittest', 'parasite', 'species'
and so on. Otherwise nobody will understand it and nobody will publish it.

Anyway, I do not live in America, I do not even believe in god, I just find
this debate ridiculous.

~~~
Udo
When scientists today talk about evolutionary processes, that's very different
from the way "survival of the fittest" is crammed down the public's throat
with animal documentaries and the like.

 _> Forget chemistry, you will have to butcher your theory with terms like
'fittest', 'parasite', 'species' and so on._

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Like all fields of knowledge, bio sciences
adhere to a certain lingo consensus to express ideas. In some cases, an
eventual expansion of the original meaning is inevitable, but if anything I'd
actually accuse many science papers of doing the opposite (creating new
expressions where none were needed). There is no butchering going on in
respect to evolution as a process, though of course there are ongoing
conversations about the forces and sub-processes going on in nature. But just
because our models aren't complete that doesn't mean we don't have a pretty
good idea of what's going on in general. Especially in molecular biology, the
theoretical advances and the amount of raw knowledge has been nothing short of
staggering in recent years.

 _> Anyway, I do not live in America, I do not even believe in god, I just
find this debate ridiculous._

That makes your original comment all the more puzzling, I guess. Your post
sure seemed to have a religious background.

