Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong Part 2

Does anyone else come across many people who hold beliefs or say things about evolution that are clearly contrary or falicious with evolutionary theory yet are strong advocates of evolution?

Typically I come across them when I am called on to justify my vegetarianism and so I will give a couple of examples below:

1) Moral fallacies
This is the one I hear the most often. A person will advocate evolution but then use it as a basis for their morality. So for example, they will note that humans have evolved to eat meat and vegetables then come out with things like "It is unnatural to be vegetarian", "Humans are designed to eat meat", "Humans are not supposed to survive on just vegetables". These clearly contradict the theory of evolution. I can only theorise that the people who say things like this either don't understand the processes involved in evolution such as natural selection or that they simultaneously regard humans as being the result of evolution as well as apart from it.

2) Evolution has a purpose/direction or is working towards a final result
Again very common. This evidences itself in sayings like "Humans are better than animals because they are more highly evolved" or "Humans are the end product of evolution". Again I think this must be due to a feeling that humans are both part and apart from evolution.

I hear this sort of thing from a lot of people. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people I have met who claim to believe in evolution have at some point demonstrated that they do not actually understand it. They get the basic concept of one animal turning into another but they do not seem to understand or even see the need to understand why this happens.

I'm not sure I understand how humans evolved into being vegetarians...?

MaddLlama said:

I'm not sure I understand how humans evolved into being vegetarians...?

Click to expand...

That's because they didn't, Mads.

I got the impression from the OP that Fluffy was trying to say that evolutionary theory contradicts the idea that humans are omnivores or opportunistic eaters.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

MaddLlama said:

I got the impression from the OP that Fluffy was trying to say that evolutionary theory contradicts the idea that humans are omnivores or opportunistic eaters.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry; I read it three times, and I still can't understand past the first line..........

Fluffy said:

I hear this sort of thing from a lot of people. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people I have met who claim to believe in evolution have at some point demonstrated that they do not actually understand it. They get the basic concept of one animal turning into another but they do not seem to understand or even see the need to understand why this happens.

Click to expand...

And every proponent of Evolution I've met insists that anyone who questions its validity is failing to understand it (Evolution), which is more often that not untrue. The only thing that matters, and it matters not what the intellectually barren scientists say about this, is that Ontological Evolution explains almost everything you could want to know about Spirit and matter and the relationship thereof.

Biology is part of but not the be-all and end-all of Evolutionary theory, no. Realize!

Fluffy said:

1) Moral fallacies
This is the one I hear the most often. A person will advocate evolution but then use it as a basis for their morality. So for example, they will note that humans have evolved to eat meat and vegetables then come out with things like "It is unnatural to be vegetarian", "Humans are designed to eat meat", "Humans are not supposed to survive on just vegetables". These clearly contradict the theory of evolution. I can only theorize that the people who say things like this either don't understand the processes involved in evolution such as natural selection or that they simultaneously regard humans as being the result of evolution as well as apart from it.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that humans evolved in such a manner that enabled (as opposed to required)them to eat (meaning digest) meat.
However they also evolved in such a manner as to allow them to eat (meaning digest) plants as well.

People can get protein from vegetables, like beans, where as dogs can't.

Fluffy said:

2) Evolution has a purpose/direction or is working towards a final result
Again very common. This evidences itself in sayings like "Humans are better than animals because they are more highly evolved" or "Humans are the end product of evolution". Again I think this must be due to a feeling that humans are both part and apart from evolution.

I hear this sort of thing from a lot of people. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people I have met who claim to believe in evolution have at some point demonstrated that they do not actually understand it. They get the basic concept of one animal turning into another but they do not seem to understand or even see the need to understand why this happens.

Click to expand...

It is not surprising that many people who support evolution do not understand it.
What with all the misinformation being spread as though it were fact.
Not to mention that there are differing opinions amongst the experts as well.

Fluffy said:

Does anyone else come across many people who hold beliefs or say things about evolution that are clearly contrary or falicious with evolutionary theory yet are strong advocates of evolution?

Click to expand...

Sometimes, yes. There are uninformed adherents to lots of positions, including evolution.

I think in your first example, it'd be more correct to say, "human physiology makes it difficult to stay healthy as a vegetarian," or possibly, "because of how your ancestors evolved, it was unlikely that you would have turned out to be a vegetarian," which is a meaningless statement to say to a vegetarian, since the probability of something that's already occurred is exactly 1.

Terms like "higher", "better", or "more evolved" are also meaningless. All evolutionary theory says is that organisms will become better adapted to their immediate environment over time. The idea that we're the epitome of creation or the pinnacle of evolution is, IMO, hubris.

It is possible to get all needed substanses when you are a vegitarian, vitamins, proteins etc. But it requires some effort and knowlege about what you need to eat. If you have a job which requires alot of physical labour or you work out alot you will most probably need to eat suppliments in order to stay healthy.

Humans are not the end or the final goal of evolution. Evolution on this planet will reach its end when our sun has reached a phase in its life cycle where its effects on this planet will make it impossible for organics to survive. Scientists speculate that it will occure with in the next 1 - 2 billion years. If we (humans) still exist then, we will look alot different then we do today.

Although there may be different opinions among experts, I think that all of the main facts are agreed to by those that accept the mechanisms of evolution - the animals that are best suited for breeding, and they are the ones that breed the most prolifically.

I would like to know if there is a correlation between people of a religious inclination, and whether they believe that evolution has a purpose, or that they believe that humanity is the pinnacle of evolution.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I believe that the pinnacle of evolution so far must be the cockroach. This is why:

- They have a spread that is almost worldwide.
- They can survive without food for a month.
- They can survive underwater for forty-five minutes.
- They can slow their heart rate.
- They can survive up to a month without a head.
- They can survive at least six times the lethal dose of nuclear fallout for humans.

rojse said:

At the risk of derailing the thread, I believe that the pinnacle of evolution so far must be the cockroach. This is why:

- They have a spread that is almost worldwide.
- They can survive without food for a month.
- They can survive underwater for forty-five minutes.
- They can slow their heart rate.
- They can survive up to a month without a head.
- They can survive at least six times the lethal dose of nuclear fallout for humans.

Click to expand...

This is soo true! Thank you, Rojse. :rainbow1:

It's not uncommon for people to argue from a group selection basis. That's a pretty glaring misunderstanding. "Structure X evolved for the good of the species." "They exhibit this behaviour because it prevents the groups from starving."

Yeah, but those ******** cheated! They have started before us...

Sorry if I was unclear. Ill try and explain again.

I encounter a lot of people who advocate evolution yet demonstrate a misunderstanding of its basic mechanisms. For some reason, I encounter this the most when I am asked to justify my vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is completely irrelevant to this thread except that I am using it to illustrate the misunderstandings I have encountered.

Fluffy said:

Sorry if I was unclear. Ill try and explain again.

I encounter a lot of people who advocate evolution yet demonstrate a misunderstanding of its basic mechanisms. For some reason, I encounter this the most when I am asked to justify my vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is completely irrelevant to this thread except that I am using it to illustrate the misunderstandings I have encountered.

Click to expand...

Well, I understand that; evolution works "as a whole"; individual idiosyncrasies are nothing to do with evolution.

Fluffy said:

1) Moral fallacies
This is the one I hear the most often. A person will advocate evolution but then use it as a basis for their morality. So for example, they will note that humans have evolved to eat meat and vegetables then come out with things like "It is unnatural to be vegetarian", "Humans are designed to eat meat", "Humans are not supposed to survive on just vegetables". These clearly contradict the theory of evolution. I can only theorise that the people who say things like this either don't understand the processes involved in evolution such as natural selection or that they simultaneously regard humans as being the result of evolution as well as apart from it.

Click to expand...

I haven't heard anyone use that argument. I have had vegetarians try and send me on a guilt trip about me eating tasty animals. I really don't care what people choose to eat, because humans evolved to survive on a vast variety of foods, which is a big reason for why we became so successful. Usually, however, its the Christians who try and argue that evolution is immoral or leads to immorality, which is of course total bolany.

2) Evolution has a purpose/direction or is working towards a final result
Again very common. This evidences itself in sayings like "Humans are better than animals because they are more highly evolved" or "Humans are the end product of evolution". Again I think this must be due to a feeling that humans are both part and apart from evolution.

I hear this sort of thing from a lot of people. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people I have met who claim to believe in evolution have at some point demonstrated that they do not actually understand it. They get the basic concept of one animal turning into another but they do not seem to understand or even see the need to understand why this happens.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I need to get out more. All the evolutionist I know (aka internet nerds) are fairly intelligent and understand that evolution is just a dumb, blind force of nature. However, I do think that humans are in a unique position in that we could choose to evolve a certian way, simply becuase we have some understanding of whats going on.

Real Sorceror said:

However, I do think that humans are in a unique position in that we could choose to evolve a certian way, simply becuase we have some understanding of whats going on.

Click to expand...

You cannot choose to evolve. It just happens, anything else is GE.
Also, humans have essentially stopped evolving in all areas except in a few tribes which we have not discovered yet. It can also be argued that we stopped evolving when agriculture came along, as we were could stockpile food until shortages came, essentially saying **** you to natural selection

I think that we could direct evolution in a couple of ways, and humans are at the stage where they are at the intelligent enough to manipulate the course of their evolution.

Obviously, all of the ways I discuss here require extensive scientific testing and ethcial debate. It does not mean that I support all or any of these ideas, I merely present them to start a debate.

- Eugenics - controlling which people are allowed to breed, and which ones cannot through genetic screening. Disregarding ethical concerns for one moment, mapping the entire genetic code of a single person costs approximately ten million dollars, so I do not see this happening in the foreseeable future.
- Genetic engineering - altering the genes which make up a person, also means that these traits can be passed on. Not at a stage where it is done successfully and repeatedly on complex animals closely related to us, such as chimpanzees, nor are these changes extensive or overly complex, considering the length of an animal's DNA code.
- Mechanical implants - not passed on to progeny, but can far more extensively modify the capabilities of a person, and is far more feasible at this time.

Hope this helps.

rojse said:

I think that we could direct evolution in a couple of ways, and humans are at the stage where they are at the intelligent enough to manipulate the course of their evolution.

Click to expand...

We can manipulate our genetic structure, we cannot manipulate our evolution by definition.

Mechanical implants are far more likely to be implemented then any other solution, but it is nowhere near feasible. Besides lag time issues, batteries are very heavy and very slow to charge, though there is a new super-capacitor which actually has a similar capacity to Li+ batteries and is flexible.