Customer Discussions > Science forum

Evolution / Craetion Misconceptions


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 119 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 20, 2012 6:58:41 AM PDT
Part I:
=========
The University of California Museum of Paleontology and The Howard Hughes Medical Institute published the following 37 Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution.

I thought that 37 misconceptions indicate that The Theory of Evolution is in deep troubles, its supporters lack the means of communicating their theory succinctly enough to reduce those misconceptions to zero (none) or one at most.

Here are the 37 time bombs of evolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

Misconceptions about evolutionary theory and processes

1. Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
2. Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.
3. Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.
4. Individual organisms can evolve during a single lifespan.
5. Evolution only occurs slowly and gradually.
6. Because evolution is slow, humans cannot influence it.
7. Genetic drift only occurs in small populations.
8. Humans are not currently evolving.
9. Species are distinct natural entities, with a clear definition, that can be easily recognized by anyone.

Misconceptions about natural selection and adaptation

10. Natural selection involves organisms trying to adapt.
11. Natural selection gives organisms what they need.
12. Humans can't negatively impact ecosystems, because species will just evolve what they need to survive.
13. Natural selection acts for the good of the species.
14. The fittest organisms in a population are those that are strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.
15. Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population.
16. Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments.
17. All traits of organisms are adaptations.

Misconceptions about evolutionary trees

18. Taxa that are adjacent on the tips of phylogeny are more closely related to one another than they are to taxa on more distant tips of the phylogeny.
19. Taxa that appear near the top or right-hand side of a phylogeny are more advanced than other organisms on the tree.
20. Taxa that are nearer the bottom or left-hand side of a phylogeny represent the ancestors of the other organisms on the tree.
21. Taxa that are nearer the bottom or left-hand side of a phylogeny evolved earlier than other taxa on the tree.
22. A long branch on a phylogeny indicates that the taxon has changed little since it diverged from other taxa.

Misconceptions about population genetics

23. Each trait is influenced by one Mendelian locus.
24. Each locus has only two alleles.

Misconceptions about evolution and the nature of science

25. Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.
26. Evolution is `just' a theory.
27. Evolutionary theory is invalid because it is incomplete and cannot give a total explanation for the biodiversity we see around us.
28. Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.

Misconceptions about the acceptance of evolution

29. The theory of evolution is flawed, but scientists won't admit it.
30. Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it.
31. Most biologists have rejected `Darwinism' and no longer agree with the ideas put forth by Darwin and Wallace.

Misconceptions about the implications of evolution

32. Evolution leads to immoral behavior.
33. Evolution supports the idea of `might makes right' and rationalizes the oppression of some people by others.
34. If students are taught that they are animals, they will behave like animals.

Misconceptions about evolution and religion

35. Evolution and religion are incompatible.

Misconceptions about teaching evolution

36. Teachers should teach "both sides" of the evolution issue and let students decide - or give equal time to evolution and creationism.
37. Evolution is itself religious, so requiring teachers to teach evolution violates the first amendment.

================ end of Quote==============

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

Posted on Oct 20, 2012 7:05:18 AM PDT
Part II:
=====
http://www.amazon.com/forum/science/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdMsgID=Mx2Q6G5D03GIJDO&cdMsgNo=2881&cdPage=116&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2OT9SFBUVZQ8D#Mx2Q6G5D03GIJDO

Mohamed F. El-Hewie says:
Christine M. Janis wrote:

"Genomic similarities (and dissimilarities) are precisely in line with comparative anatomy."
============================

Of course, one cannot expect less than expression of genotype into phenotype makeup.

The many questions surrounding such fate probe the causation and the scope of diversification.

If one assumes that external variables press the selection of fittest genotype based on fittest phenotype, it would be mathematically impossible to prove that a genome exercises such enormous trials and errors in order to come up with the phenotype fittest to environment.

There must be direct effect of environment on genome, other than random mutation, that could explain the interaction of genome with external environment than the fitness of anatomical function to tackling environmental challenges.

An inescapable modality is the radioactive interaction between the genome and external sources. In fact, almost every bit of the DNA or RNA is purely radio-sensitive to the extent that radiation alone, and not mechanical burden on anatomical function, could be the sole mechanism of genetic evolution.

My favorite presentation is:

Old Selection:
==========
Environment selection--> functional anatomy --> phenotype --> genotype --> trial/error --> phenotype --> functional anatomy --> adapting to environment

My Proposed Selection
=================
Environment selection--> radioactive trigger --> genotype --> phenotype --> functional anatomy --> need not adapt to environment

In my proposal, evolution need not always progress from the fit to the fittest, but mandated by non-random radiation code.

A perfect support of my proposal is the nested hierarchies within the periodic table of isotopes and elements with abundances fitting predictable mathematical model and which stem from the nuclear forces along the 92 stable elements of the periodic tables.

The math, however, is daunting if such scenario of mine to stand grueling verification.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 8:12:28 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 20, 2012 11:35:34 AM PDT]

Posted on Oct 20, 2012 8:17:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012 8:18:25 AM PDT
Part 3
=====

http://www.amazon.com/forum/science/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdMsgID=Mx1MS9E3MA8UX5P&cdMsgNo=2891&cdPage=116&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2OT9SFBUVZQ8D#Mx1MS9E3MA8UX5P

Christine M. Janis wrote:

"But this does not explain the similarity in the phylogenetic patterns of mitochondrial DNA, endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes, and various other bits of genomic baggage that have nothing to do with phenotypic expression, but merely reflect historical processes. "
===================================

What is the split ratio of non-phenotypic to phenotypic genomic determinants?

Farther, historic processes based on "chaos and chance" would kill the theory of evolution without a search for the main culprits of design.

A perfect and safe ID could be easily spotted in the nuclear pattern that nested isotopes for the 92 elements of the periodic table. That was also discovered through the pattern recognition of maximal abundance of elements with periodic variation in the alpha particles content of nuclei.

Looking through the eyes of biologists, one should ask whether there is specific number of sub-hierarchies for each distinct species hierarchy, to which one could find a periodic mathematical relationship.

That would simply throw the theory of evolution in the corner of nuclear physics, which is fitter in number crunching than biochemistry.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 8:32:57 AM PDT
noman says:
RE:MFEH says: "I thought that 37 misconceptions indicate that The Theory of Evolution is in deep troubles, its supporters lack the means of communicating their theory succinctly enough to reduce those misconceptions to zero (none) or one at most"

**WOW! The most appropriate response to this is via Wolfgang Pauli: Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch! "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!"

**More to the point...the "misconceptions" are due to the ignorance of audience, not a fault of the theory. Many people have trouble with calculus. Using your "logic" I suppose the blame falls on Leibnitz and Newton?

SUMMARY: Creationists are now reduced to blaming their ignorance and incompetence on science. Science is hard,so it must be wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 8:38:28 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012 8:39:23 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 8:45:45 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012 8:47:18 AM PDT
noman says:
RE:"You are the one who is ashamed of yourself, your beliefs, and everything you support by resorting to anonymous screen name..."

**Nope...just not interested in dealing w/ Internet lunatics showing up in my neighborhood. And I classify you (looking at your public court record, your misogynous bigoted remarks to other posters and your narcissistic obsession with your own body) as a potentially very dangerous lunatic. ~_+

EDIT:And, none of your remarks actually deals w/ the fact your post is utter nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 8:59:50 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Given that most of your copied list consists of misconceptions it doesn't say what you think it does.

For example:

"37. Evolution is itself religious, so requiring teachers to teach evolution violates the first amendment."

In context this is saying 'It is a misconception that evolution is religious, so requiring teachers to teach evolution does not violate the first amendment'.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 9:08:52 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 9:12:21 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"It clearly stated that those were misconceptions."

From which you drew the false conclusion: "The Theory of Evolution is in deep troubles" (sic).

"So, you wasted your time with your lack of focus."

Countering deluded false beliefs is never a waste of time.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 9:21:57 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 9:51:10 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"Of course 37 misconceptions suffice to point to a troubled theory."

The misconceptions simply point to levels of ignorance, poor education and poor teachers.

"For your information, general and special relativity suffer from less than five misconceptions, and both theories never did any good to any scientist, never benefited any application, but gained their fame among detached, irrelevant folks like your poor soul."

Simply because you are ignorant of the applications doesn't mean there aren't any...

Einstein's theories of special and general relativity are important in the maintenance of satellite telecommunications, and every application which relies upon them. They are also applicable to CRTs (calculating the deflector field strength), GPS, high power microwave applications and some types of laser, and will have an impact on computers based on spintronics. Then there's the applications relating to particle accelerators, space probes...

If these applications don't do you any good, then either you aren't living in the 21st century, or have no interest in science and technology.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 10:10:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012 10:11:12 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 10:26:14 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"You cannot advance your cause without citing references and showing your stature on the matter you cite or opine upon."

That's a poor excuse for a mature intellectual response to the providing of example to counter your rash declaration that there are no applications of Einstein's theories in everyday life.

"Just copying and dumping on the form, though it comforts your wounded ego, it only exposes your mediocre ability to admit your ignorance."

It seems you are still making the same old errors...

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2009/a6310-07-opn.html

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 11:21:00 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 20, 2012 11:35:23 AM PDT
RR says:
"http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php"
oopss....

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 12:11:27 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 12:15:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012 12:16:51 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
"Of course 37 misconceptions suffice to point to a troubled theory."

Your logic: Many nonspecialists don't understand the theory => the theory is wrong.

The truth: The first does not imply the second. Your lack of logical thinking is showing.

As for your rant about GR not being useful or having peer reviewed publications supporting its application:

Abstract: "The global positioning system (GPS) provides an excellent educational example of how the theory of general relativity is put into practice and becomes part of our everyday life. This paper gives a short and instructive derivation of an important formula used in the GPS, and is aimed at graduate students and general physicists..."

Matolcsi T, Matolcsi M. Coordinate time and proper time in the GPS. European Journal of Physics.2008.29(6):1147-51.

In short: your logic is deeply flawed. Did you ever actually take any type of formal logic?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 1:34:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012 1:36:05 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 1:51:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012 1:54:01 PM PDT
noman says:
RE: MEWH says "Google has eliminated all references to relativity from GPS entries."

Search terms: relativity GPS
About 913,000 results (0.60 seconds)

First six results:

GPS and Relativity
www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
Apr 27, 2009 - Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System. People often ask me "What good is Relativity?" It is a commonplace to think of Relativity as ...

Global Positioning System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
(To achieve accuracy requirements, GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks.) Additional inspiration for GPS came when ...

GPS navigation device Satellite navigation GPS (disambiguation)
What the Global Positioning System Tells Us About Relativity
www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

GPS (Global Positioning System) data is inconsistent with predictions from theory of relativity.
Relativity in the Global Positioning System
relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/Share
by N Ashby - 2003 - Cited by 144 - Related articles
Thorough review article by Neil Ashby (University of Colorado) about the various relativistic effects that play a role in the operation of the Global Positioning ...

Global Positioning System (GPS) and Relativity
www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm
Why relativistic effects should not be relevant for GPS position determinations.

Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life - Physics Central
www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm
But strangely enough, relativity plays a key role in a multi-billion dollar growth industry centered around the Global Positioning System (GPS). When Einstein ...

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 1:54:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012 2:00:03 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Well, truth is evolution isn't even troubled. You still are making conclusions that are in no way based on your evidence.

As for GPS, this directly rebuts your assertion that there are no peer reviewed publications on the subject. You could look up the paper if you don't believe that the conclusion is paraphrased in the abstract. Good papers do that. Funny, isn't it?

And, yes we, also noticed you moving the goal posts. You should do your research on this topic: The clocks are corrected, and the receivers work based on time signals. The margin of error here is several kilometers per day. That is not exactly trivial.

By the way, I have freely admitted when I am wrong. You never have. You never admitted you where wrong about the conservation of angular momentum in any orbit, or in the case of GPS when every single source on the subject says you are. Please don't project your mental deficiencies on me. They are yours alone.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 2:10:38 PM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
andthehorsewhogobblegoo said: "evolution is the religion of atheism no matter how much they deny it" (sic)

>Where is there a church of evolution? How is evolution a faith-based philosophy?

"the only reason darwin foisted his big lie on the world was because he wanted to disprove there was a God" (sic)

>Prove it! How would evolutionary ideas disprove the existence of god(s). Why wouldn't evolution be the instrument or process by which God created life?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 2:11:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012 2:28:47 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
An just as an after thought: how do you think it determines x,y,z,and t without knowing the distance to the satellites?

It knows the distance based on the local time and the time transmitted by the satellites. They actually have a clever way of continually resetting the receiver's clock, but basically you have to know two things to calculate distance: the speed of the signal and how long it was traveling. Without using time, how exactly do you imagine GPS calculates the distance?

You are ranting without applying the least bit of thought to your process. By the way, it takes 5 satellites to fix 4 coordinates. It takes 2 to fix 1-D coordinates. It takes 3 to fix 2-D coordinates. It takes 4 to define 3-D coordinates. It would take 5 to fix 4-D coordinates, and you would still need to know the radius of the hypersphere. If you don't believe me, I recommend a compass, ruler, and paper.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 2:13:07 PM PDT
noman says:
"Relativistic correction to many band structure calculations of materials, including semiconductors[1,2], is one reason we understand about these important material so very well.

Zz.

[1] F. Herman et al. PRL v.11, p.541 (1963).
[2] G. M. Fehrenbach and G. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. B v.55, p.6666 (1997)."
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-277251.html

Electronic Basis of the Strength of Materials
p 50,60& 280

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 4:34:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012 4:39:03 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  13
Total posts:  119
Initial post:  Oct 20, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 10, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions