Does Evolution Require Spreading The Word?

You certainly have a point here. I would even say that quite a few people who take the 'side' of evolution, nevertheless don't have a correct understanding of it. (but then, it's quite a complex affair and not easy to get a feel for how it works, certainly not when you're surrounded by popular misconceptions even when they are not aimed against evolution)

On the other hand, one could take the view that a bit of drama and missionary approach is almost a necessity. Not what we would like ideally, but a functional compromise. Because of the background knowledge that is needed, the overall complexity, the lack of exposure of the general public (in general) to serious science, these complex issues start off with a serious disadvantage. The "meme" of religion has a natural advantage. It's unfortunately not obvious that truth and facts get to the surface all on their own. So sometimes the truth will have to hijack mechanisms/methods like propaganda and appeal to emotion in order to break into ignorance. Even if this same tactic at the same time offers ammunition to the opposition... It needs that little push, after which it should be able to stand on its own.

That's all fine, but there is a strong misconception that there are "problems" with the theory. That is, any "problems" that would deserve extensive coverage in a course on the level of kids who would get an introduction into the whole idea of evolution. Evolution as a 'fact', and some of its main mechanisms are very strongly established and experience no meaningful scientific controversy. That's not to say that unknown factors and subjects of debate (around the relative contributions of the mechanisms, the historic details etc.) should be kept silent. But they should be thaught like what they are: the normal sort of gaps that still exist in even strongly established theories, simply the consequence of the fact that new answers automatically lead to new questions.

That's certainly not evolution.

That's also certainly not evolution as we understand it now.

It's what the evidence points to, and what would be expected in the absence of any hard boundaries between the so called "micro" and "macro" evolution.

And the truths that cannot (or that you don't want to) be arrived at through scientific study, what do you do with those?

Both will always be possible, since it is a matter of choice.

The issue here is that you seem to be trapped in the preconception that there are "absolutes". You want to categorize, but fail to understand that categorization only works over very long timeframes.

Let's take the classic example of the electromagnetic spectrum of visible light: viewed from a distance, it's quite easy to point to the colors (violet - blue - green - yellow - red). But zoom closely into the areas between the colors, and tell me where exactly for example green changes into yellow? Basically, your guess is as good as mine... It's arbitrary. And unless one recognizes that and accepts the fuzzy concept, there will always be an argument.

Your "primate giving birth to a human" line illustrates a denial of the fuzzy and gradual transition. Starting from that premise makes it impossible to correctly picture how it works.

I'll tell you where I'm coming from...

Looking at your post count, I think it's fair to call you a regular here? In that context, it kinda surprised me how (poorly) you still characterized evolution. The examples you gave repeat the same parody of evolution that normally characterizes people who are eiter pretty ignorant or dishonest. Somehow I think you not only *should*, but also *do* know better than that.

Why is it then, that you hold onto that easily ridiculed portrayal? The only reason I can think of (besides dishonesty, but I certainly don't immediately jump to that conclusion), is that you feel better about it that way. You obviously start from the premise that evolution can and should not be true. So, for yourself, you embrace the picture of a female primate mother with a human baby popping out. An image that is so ridiculous that you can easily discard it without further thought, like any other sane person. You can then easily bash that parody without feeling uncertain, and feel good about it. So much nicer than being confronted with all the unsurmountable evidence that inevitable leads to only one conclusion.

I have no problem with that, but what if others defend another truth/God? How are you guys going to work it out and agree? :) I'm not saying these concepts you name are all 'worthless', but just that it can be dangerous to refer to them as 'Truths' (TM). People who have other ideas about a 'Truth' (TM), tend to be not just considered as having another opinion; they are considered to be wrong. And that's a pretty shaky basis to get along with each other...

I don't associate the concept "truth" with any of this, actually?

just a quick post to let you know I'm working on a reply. There seem to be some profound differences between your and my take on evolution. What it says, what it MEANS and what it "should tell us". Together with the language barrier it's quite a task to come up with something comprehensive, structured and worthwhile, but I'm working on it!! (which isn't a guarantee that I will deliver what I promise, in the end lol)

First I appologize if I did give you the impression that I thought you were "dishonest" (despite me pointing out explicitly that I wasn't ;) ) Here, (again, I might say), there is a great number of gradations between the extremes . Being

"speaking the truth about something which one understands perfectly and of which one is perfectly informed, even though it has an undesirable impact on one's worldview"

one the one hand, and

"lying on purpose about something which one understands perfectly and of which one is perfectly informed"

on the other hand.

I would certainly (based on what I think to know about you thus far) not situate you in the latter group.

Let's start here:

I will certainly agree that this is a much better representation already than "a primate giving birth to a human being". So the first question is: why then do you still spontaneously decide to use the inadequate characterization (not to say downright misrepresentation) at times? Strawmen usually show up for a reason.

I should also add though, that even someone who characterizes evolution/common descent like you just did, could still misunderstand the essence. One should also always keep in mind that the mechanism is not thought to be teleological and/or progressive. I.e. "further evolved" is not thought to be synonymous to "higher animal". (I noticed you used the term 'less than human' at some point) And if we rewind time and let things start all over again, we would never get Homo Sapiens again. Maybe not even intelligent beings, or (even more) maybe not even the same biochemical basis.

I mention this because part of some people's "disbelief" is caused by this idea that it would require such staggering innumerable amount of precise coincidences to exactly produce Homo Sapiens, while this is not much different from the "incredible coincidence" someone feels when winning a lottery. It's only an "a posteriori" coincidence or improbability (?)

But honestly... Surely it's not just completely a matter of "believing"?? There happens to be lots of evidence that makes it entirely possible.

Let us assume for a minute that you have nothing at stake (no biasses, no history). Next you start wondering about the diversity of life (and possibly how it all came about). Still next, you are confronted with the findings in (molecular) genetics, biogeography, geology, morphology... What do you think would be the best coherent, elegant and useful explanation for all this evidence? It doesn't even have to be 100% perfect right from the word go. But in what direction would you look?

If you would not favour somekind of evolutionary scenario, what would it be then, instead? (I'll admit rightaway that I have no idea of your position in detail)

Would you characterize something like 2.5% as a 'tremendous difference'? I would also advice to not put the millions to billions of years aside as irrelevant or insignificant. A true understanding of the kind of timeframes involved would greatly help to lessen some of your skepticism.

Nobody will ever be able to let you experience your definition of "macro evolution" with your own eyes and Live!. I suppose you also totally reject any star formation theories and 'Big Bang'-like scenarios on that basis.

Then, about the "fuzzy electromagnetic spectrum" analogy that I used.

First of all, the analogy was targeted (because most useful only) at one issue in particular: the gradual but ultimately significant change of one population(species) over time (for example as a result of changing environment). Resulting in us, in retrospect, making distinction between two (or multiple) "serial species" (prior and later). Thus, think of it as one seperate piece of branch of the evolutionary tree, that has no sub-branches or forks (or disregard them for this particular analogy). In that particular situation, setting the exact seperations between different sequential species is entirely a matter of agreement. How much genetic and morphological change needs to accumulate before we start to talk about a "new species"? Since they don't co-exist in time, you can not for example execute a mating experiment.

Which also means that we're looking at a 'temporal' analogy here. The branch moves horizontally through design space but the vertical axis is time. The different colors and gradations could be thought of as corresponding with different genetic make-ups at different TIMES, and not with for example different coexistent species at one particular moment in time. (although near a fork/sub-branch it could also apply).

The "fuzzyness" we're talking about does in no way compromise taxonomy. Its only implication in that context is perhaps that the exact temporal location of subbranching and forks in evolutionary branches is somewhat blurred. But once the branches have diverted sufficiently, it is both clear that they should be considered seperate AND that they have a common ancestor in their past.

The reason that we don't routinely experience this "fuzzyness" between existent species at a particular moment in time, is that natural selection is most severe between creatures who occupy the same ecological niche in the same area. So if a species has somehow split off only very recently, but nevertheless gets in competition with a very closely related species again (like when a geographical seperation disappears), the least successfully adapted will quickly just be outcompeted and disappear. (or alternatively move to another niche instead, which speeds up the growing differences) So because of this, the branches of the evolutionary tree tend to have a lot of 'air' between them.

As pointed out above, I was not considering "fuzzyness" in that context.

However, let us look at your argument here.

First of all, it is an "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief". According to your interpretation, accepting evolution would support racist thinking, so therefore you deny it. However, your feelings towards what the consequences could be, have no influence on it being true or not.

Fortunately, there's no need to look at it this way, for a multitude of reasons:

1) as a social species, we collectively create our own morals. If some Natural Principle seems to dictate a moral that we collectively reject, then we are completely free to disregard whatever it seems to imply. We don't have to deny facts for this. Just stop assigning moral consequences to those facts. After all, the only way they could have moral consequences, is when we ASSIGN them.

2)

First of all, If the evolutionary paradigm tells anything relevant here (in this hypothetical context), it is that such a line does not exist. And if you think about genetics, consider that there is much more genetic diversity WITHIN racial groups than BETWEEN racial groups. No support for your nightmare scenario there!

3)

A "line" is by definition not fuzzy. Any "line" of this sorts that is drawn is the responsibility of the party that draws it. So are the consequences assigned to being on this or the other side of the defined "line". Let's say there would somehow be scientific agreement about where we put the fine line that needs to be crossed to become "human". Evolutionary thinking would then certainly NOT support the statement that on the one side we have "a 100% human", and on the other side we would have "totally non-humans". It would be like: the huge majority of non-humans is 99% human, a minority of them down to 98% human. And the group of so-called "non-fully-humans" would be roughly half of all creatures that we were trying to classify, lol. So any honest, objective "value" that would be assigned according to this classification, would have almost no impact compared to the existing background of social differences.

regards,

Annafan