The Most Common Misunderstandings About Evolution

RealClearScience ^ | February 20, 2016 | Paula Kover

[EveningStar]

Given its huge success in describing the natural world for the past 150 years, the theory of evolution is remarkably misunderstood. In a recent episode of the Australian series of "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here", former cricket star Shane Warne questioned the theory - asking "if humans evolved from monkeys, why haven't today's monkeys evolved"?

Similarly, a head teacher from a primary school in the UK recently stated that evolution is a theory rather than a fact. This is despite the fact that children in the UK start learning about evolution in Year 6 (ten to 11-year-olds), and have further lessons throughout high school. While the theory of evolution is well accepted in the UK compared with the rest of the world, a survey in 2005 indicated that more than 20% of the country's population was not sure about it, or did not accept it.

In contrast, there are not many people questioning the theory of relativity, or studies on the acceptance of the theory of relativity; possibly reflecting an acceptance that this is a matter for physicists to settle. Many studies have tried to determine why evolution is questioned so often by the general public, despite complete acceptance by scientists. Although no clear answer has been found, I suspect the common misconceptions described below have something to do with it.

[csivils]

You hit one of my biggest issues with evolution... the theory can be used on any set of facts to explain anything as supporting the theory.

Short necks evolved due to evolution as did long necks, medium necks, blue necks and red necks. Given any random fact, some scientist somewhere can explain why it proves evolution.

[dadfly]

oops, crickets...

maybe the attempted loony toons ref didn’t translate.

when people jumped on your humorous octopuses’ nose comment, and knowing your rep for mild pranking, i couldn’t resist.

but Gamecock please accept my appology if offense was given!

[Gamecock]

I hang out in the Religion Forum, takes a lot more to offend me than that!
(I laughed)

[dadfly]

thx bro. i was alternately facepalming and laughing through that thread, too. God bless!

[BroJoeK]

SampleMan on giraffes: "All we know for certain is that it is outnumbered by shorter necked ruminants and that it has managed to survive with a long neck.
So why from that would anyone conclude that having a long neck gave it competitive advantage?"

Actually, we know more than that.
Giraffes and their closest living relatives, okapi, have unique physical characteristics, which are also found in certain fossils.
These fossils tell us there were prehistorically other forms of giraffe.
Some were very long-necked, others not so much.

The shorter necks can easily be seen as "transitional forms" because they demonstrate that while long necks were important for this family, not all needed the super-long necks of today's giraffes.

1) Today's closely related Okapi & Giraffe, 2) extinct Giraffidae called Sivatherium:

csivils post #101: "Short necks evolved due to evolution as did long necks, medium necks, blue necks and red necks.
Given any random fact, some scientist somewhere can explain why it proves evolution."

The correct term is "confirms", but of course, since natural selection limits evolution to forms which work for their ecological niche.
So, for example, the giraffe family, we see bushes & trees at every height, making it unnecessary in every niche for every giraffe-family species to have super-long necks.
Where "long-enough" was good-enough for survival, the necks stopped growing.
That's what evolution theory predicts.

And this is a problem for you, exactly, why?

[SampleMan]

Where "long-enough" was good-enough for survival, the necks stopped growing...And this is a problem for you, exactly, why?

Presumption of purpose that only exists if the evolution is guided, and non-sequitur presumption that a species that had survived with a shorter neck for the entire period of its evolution, then reached a point of "good-enough". Obviously is was good enough at every single point, even before the neck started extending, and other species eating the same diet in the same habitat never grew longer necks and were "good-enough" and still are.

If anything, the giraffe neck reached a point of extension where they "could't survive any more", which did introduce significant natural selection and restricted the ever growing neck. That long neck comes with some serious handicaps.

The premise that all mutations/evolution have to be positive is illogical. They just can't be so negative that they preclude survival.

Scientists should simply never say, "The animal developed _______ in order to ________." That is the logical equivalent of saying a boy developed great height, so that he could fill the NBA niche. The man plays in the NBA because his height makes him better at it. All other athletic skill being equal, the man would have still been a professional athlete in any number of other sports.

In summary, it is just as logical to presume that animals find niches that best fit their adaptations, as it is to presume that they evolve over tens of millions of years to take advantage of a niche that may or may not still exist when they are finally adapted for it.

[BroJoeK]

SampleMan: "Presumption of purpose that only exists if the evolution is guided..."

Of course, I believe that evolution is guided by God, for His purposes.
But modern natural-science can't address theological or teleological issues, so science must use the term "natural selection" which means nothing more than: individuals born with some biological advantages will survive and reproduce more often than others.

Science calls that "nature", I call it God and you can call it whatever you wish, FRiend.

SampleMan: "non-sequitur presumption that a species that had survived with a shorter neck for the entire period of its evolution, then reached a point of "good-enough".
Obviously is was good enough at every single point, even before the neck started extending, and other species eating the same diet in the same habitat never grew longer necks and were "good-enough" and still are."

It's not 100% clear what point you're trying to make here, but perhaps I can summarize your point with this question:

Why do some animals, but not all, evolve a distinctive characteristic, such as super-long necks in giraffes?

The answer is pretty simple & straight-forward.
Evolution is all about the term "speciation", meaning how one species evolves into something different.
In this particular case, we're asking how one species of ancient pre-giraffes evolved into two or more species, some with very long necks (giraffes), others with somewhat shorter necks (i.e., Okapi and Sivatherium).

Well for starters, speciation begins when two populations of the same species are separated from each other so that they no longer regularly interbreed.
Yes, in the beginning they can interbreed, but there is some barrier preventing it.
That barrier might be a large river, lake, mountains, dessert, etc., just something preventing interbreeding and making conditions on one side of the barrier somewhat different from the other side.

Different conditions means nature is selecting winners & losers somewhat differently on each side of the barrier.
And what we've learned from human-directed animal husbandry is that adaptions (i.e., dog breeds) can happen within a few generations, but that speciation in nature takes much longer -- thousands, tens of thousands & hundreds of thousands of generations.
Before two different populations can become separate species, they must first be separate breeds and sub-species.

So, let's take the example of giraffe ancestors separated by a large river flowing south to north.
On the west side of the river the climate is mild & wet, with lots of vegetation, easy to reach.
There, animals which have been successful so far now have no need to change, so a moderately extended neck, such as we see on the Okapi (seen on left) is perfectly satisfactory:

But as you travel east of the river, terrain and climate change, growing dryer, with sparser vegetation, much of it only available higher in trees.
Here the "old ways" don't work so well, and there is natural selection in favor of animals which can reach up higher into the tree canopy.

Some animals evolved one way to reach those high leaves:

Others evolved a different way:

Over many, many generations -- hundreds of thousands -- it became increasingly difficult, and finally impossible, for members of one pre-giraffe population to interbreed successfully with the other, so we now call them separate species -- i.e., giraffe & Okapi.

Is that not clear?

SampleMan: "The premise that all mutations/evolution have to be positive is illogical.
They just can't be so negative that they preclude survival."

But in the entire history of the known Universe nobody -- ever -- has suggested that "all mutations have to be positive", just the opposite.
At least 99% of DNA mutations are either negative or have no effect.
Only a small fortunate few get mutations which actually help them survive & reproduce, but they are the ones on whom a species' future adaptions depend.

SampleMan: "Scientists should simply never say, 'The animal developed _______ in order to ________.'
That is the logical equivalent of saying a boy developed great height, so that he could fill the NBA niche. "

I'm pretty sure there's a technical term for that, though don't remember for sure what -- maybe "anthropomorphizing" meaning, giving human qualities to natural events.
People do that because it's quicker & easier to say than the more scientifically correct way to express it.
But for purposes of popular TV nature shows, they figure your average viewer will not notice the problem the TV's lazy language creates.

SampleMan: "...it is just as logical to presume that animals find niches that best fit their adaptations, as it is to presume that they evolve over tens of millions of years to take advantage of a niche that may or may not still exist when they are finally adapted for it."

The wide variety of, for example, dog breeds demonstrates that evolution can move very quickly indeed, when "natural selection" dictates it.
However, in nature every evolutionary "transition form" must make some sense in its own right before it can pass on its DNA to future generations.
So no creature knows now what its descendants will ultimately look like, or do, they can only possibly make things a little better, generation by generation.

[csivils]

Because it is circular reasoning. You start with an observation regarding neck length, look for reasons to justify that observation and then claim it was a prediction when in fact it was not.

It reminds me of a time back in high school when my brother was doing a math homework problem that had the answer in the back of the book. His original answer was off by one, so he went to the top of the page and wrote “+1” on one side of the equation and proceeded to get the right answer.

The “right” answer, but not valid math. Just like your explanation regarding neck length is not valid science.

[BroJoeK]

csivils: "Because it is circular reasoning.
You start with an observation regarding neck length, look for reasons to justify that observation and then claim it was a prediction when in fact it was not."

Well, first of all, you'll need to quote precisely what I posted in order to support your claim that I somehow "got it wrong".

Second, I see nothing at all "circular" about predicting the fossil record does, in fact, show ancient giraffe-like creatures with shorter necks.
Indeed there's nothing "circular" about noticing that the giraffe's closest living relatives, Okapies, have no need for longer necks because they live in wet-jungles with lots of lower-level vegetation.

Giraffe vs. Okapi habitat:

Given such facts, it would be disingenuous to suggest that giraffe necks have nothing to do with reaching leaves high up in trees.

csivils: "The 'right' answer, but not valid math.
Just like your explanation regarding neck length is not valid science."

No, nothing "invalid" about what I've posted here.
But if you wish to quote something I've posted exactly, then I'll explain to you why you misunderstand the basic science involved.

[csivils]

I have seen videos of giraffes fighting with their necks. Based on that one fact I could conclude that longer necks gave some males an advantage while other males adopted other fighting techniques.

See... an equally meaningless piece of drivel based off of taking random facts and drawing conclusions based on an analysis that assumes there are no other factors and starts with the results rather than the inputs.

How do you know that Okapies necks are a result of where they live rather than they live where they do as a result of their neck? Take your answer and then explain to me how the subdivision that you live in determines your paycheck...

The fact you don’t see it is circular is a short coming on your part, not a misunderstanding on my part.

[SampleMan]

Brightly colored birds evolved their colors "because their bright colors gives them an edge". Dull colored birds evolved their dull colors "because their dull colors give them an edge".

When all of your reasoning starts with the premise that because an animal or plant exists everything about it must have a required purpose, then the answer to every question is going to be the same. That isn't science.

Guided evolution requires a designer. I'm cool with that, but as you say that is taboo in science. Without a designer evolution cannot be guided, mutations simply happen and the species survives, thrives, diminishes, or doesn't survive, most have failed to survive.

Zebra and Wildebeest are very different, despite having the exact same predators and competing for the exact same food source, in the exact same climate. It is ridiculous to conclude that each somehow perfectly evolved to maximize its survival. Why don't herd animals, which are well equipped to kill their predators if they acted in mutual defense, do so? By theory of natural selection, that would be a very obvious adaptation that should occur via natural selection. All of the prerequisites are there, indeed some herd animals do act in mutual defense, so why isn't it the norm? The short answer is always, "Evolution is perfect because it resulted in what we currently see, and what we currently see is perfect because it evolved to be that way." Extremely circular logic.

[BroJoeK]

csivils: "I have seen videos of giraffes fighting with their necks.
Based on that one fact I could conclude that longer necks gave some males an advantage while other males adopted other fighting techniques."

Sure, but it seems pretty obvious (certainly not "circular") that longer necks in giraffes allowed them to eat leaves from taller trees, so natural-selection weeded out shorter necked giraffes from lands where they couldn't survive.
A little thought produces other advantages of giraffes' long necks:

1. As you mentioned, male competition for territory & mates.
   
2. The view from higher-up improves their ability to see both distant resources and near-by dangers.
   
3. Giraffes' large size and high running speed makes adults impervious to most predators.

Nothing "circular" about any of those advantages.

csivils: "How do you know that Okapies necks are a result of where they live rather than they live where they do as a result of their neck?"

Of course, large animals do migrate long distances in search of greener pastures, but they also look for ways to exploit existing under-used resources.
So a giraffe which can stay-put by eating the tops of trees may be more likely to survive than one which must travel great distances for lower growing food.

Further, it's now thought the Okapi is the older species and that giraffes evolved from an extinct "transitional form" called Samotherium (middle between giraffe & okapi below).

csivils: "Take your answer and then explain to me how the subdivision that you live in determines your paycheck..."

No problem: the cost of living in your subdivision determines the lower limit on your paycheck -- if you can't afford it, you have to move out.
In that sense, the subdivision is exactly like the tall tree leaves giraffes eat: if giraffes are too short, they don't survive & reproduce in that environment.
Nothing "circular" about it, regardless of how often you make the claim.

csivils: "The fact you don't see it is circular is a short coming on your part, not a misunderstanding on my part."

No, there's nothing "circular" about my arguments, and the fact that you keep harping on that only says: 1) you misunderstand, perhaps deliberately and 2) you've been mis-educated into believing you can deny reality by yelling "circular" at it.

You can't.

[eartrumpet]

As you mentioned, male competition for territory & mates. The view from higher-up improves their ability to see both distant resources and near-by dangers. Giraffes' large size and high running speed makes adults impervious to most predators.

If it is an advantage, why didn't every prey species evolve the same advantage? Why would a wildebeest stay short and vulnerable when such advantages are available to exploit?

[BroJoeK]

SampleMan: "Brightly colored birds evolved their colors 'because their bright colors gives them an edge'.
Dull colored birds evolved their dull colors 'because their dull colors give them an edge'."

Almost invariably it's the males with the brightest colors and females who are camouflaged.
The advantages seem pretty obvious -- male competition for mates favors those the females find most attractive, while females need camouflage to hide their nests & chicks.

What exactly is your problem with that?

SampleMan: "When all of your reasoning starts with the premise that because an animal or plant exists everything about it must have a required purpose, then the answer to every question is going to be the same.
That isn't science."

But certainly not all answers are the same!
But natural selection eventually eliminates body features which serve no real purpose.
In the case of birds, for example, their primary need to fly ensures body weight will be kept as small and streamlined as absolutely necessary.
Birds which no longer need to fly (i.e., Ostriches) soon lose their streamlined shape & weight in favor of other more helpful characteristics.

And your problem with this is what, exactly?

SampleMan: "Guided evolution requires a designer.
I'm cool with that, but as you say that is taboo in science.
Without a designer evolution cannot be guided, mutations simply happen and the species survives, thrives, diminishes, or doesn't survive, most have failed to survive."

But the scientific term is "natural selection", meaning, they say, nature itself selects which few modifications will survive & reproduce, and which many will eventually die out.
Of course, I can't say how often God intervenes miraculously, versus how much He allows nature to take its course naturally.
Regardless, I'm certain the Universe in general and the Earth specifically is doing exactly what God first intended.
We know this, for example, from Genesis chapter 1.

SampleMan: "The short answer is always, "Evolution is perfect because it resulted in what we currently see, and what we currently see is perfect because it evolved to be that way."
Extremely circular logic."

Like our friend csivils, you seem extraordinarily hung up on this notion of "circular logic", even to the point of misrepresenting evolution theory to illustrate your idea.
Why is that?

So let me repeat what I told csivils: nobody in the known history of the entire Universe has ever said: "evolution is perfect", that's ridiculous, since the very nature of evolution is: things change & evolve constantly.
That's far from "perfect", it's adaption within the limits of what evolution can accomplish.

So why would you misrepresent that?

[BroJoeK]

eartrumpet: "If it is an advantage, why didn't every prey species evolve the same advantage?
Why would a wildebeest stay short and vulnerable when such advantages are available to exploit? "

Because wildebeests are not just "short and vulnerable", they fast running, long distance migrating, agile grass eating large-herd animals.
So there's no direct evolutionary path from grass eating to tree-top browsing.
And there is that matter of what they call, "ecological niche" meaning, animals will not usually compete for resources with well established "niche holders".

Which brings us to SampleMan's comment above:

SampleMan from post #111: "Zebra and Wildebeest are very different, despite having the exact same predators and competing for the exact same food source, in the exact same climate."

In fact, Zebra and Wildebeest are not the same, and do not compete directly for food.
Indeed, their relationship is symbiotic, meaning they actually help each other out.

SampleMan from post #111: "Why don't herd animals, which are well equipped to kill their predators if they acted in mutual defense, do so?
By theory of natural selection, that would be a very obvious adaptation that should occur via natural selection."

Planning & forethought to defend against predators would take hugely developed brains, which of course has only happened once in Earth's natural history.
But even more important is: the real limitation on population growth of Wildebeests, Zebras and Cape Buffalos is not their success, or lack of success against predators.
Rather, it's the availability of their preferred resources, as limited by climate -- rainy and dry seasons.
In wet years their populations can quickly double, in dry years decline even more.
Indeed, predators actually perform a useful service for these animals, by weeding out the weak, sick and otherwise unfit, keeping their gene-pool strong & healthy.
So for those herbivores, the very term "natural selection" most often means: selection by their predators.

So what, exactly, is your problem with that?

[SampleMan]

In fact, Zebra and Wildebeest are not the same, and do not compete directly for food. Indeed, their relationship is symbiotic, meaning they actually help each other out. Facts not in evidence. Care to tell us what evidence you have that they are symbiotic, other than that they both exist in the same space.

So there's no direct evolutionary path from grass eating to tree-top browsing.

Browsers, bovines, horses, deer, antelope, etc. all currently eat grass and tree leaves. Direct connection.

Planning & forethought to defend against predators would take hugely developed brains,

Larger than say the brain of a fire ant, or paper wasp? Now you are just doing the usual evolution hokum dance, where you pretend to understand why certain traits exist in some animals and not in others. But should you need a more similar animal, try the Musk Ox.

You are doing a fantastic job of proving my point about the silliness of people who claim some sort of purpose in evolutionary traits and lack thereof.

[csivils]

“No problem: the cost of living in your subdivision determines the lower limit on your paycheck — if you can’t afford it, you have to move out”

Thus, your paycheck determines the subdivision. The exact opposite of what I asked you to explain. If you can’t even get a simple inference logic question... I can see why you can’t recognize circular logic issues.

[BroJoeK]

SampleMan: "Facts not in evidence. Care to tell us what evidence you have that they are symbiotic, other than that they both exist in the same space."

Well, you'd have to check a dictionary to see if it qualifies as "symbiotic", but here is what one site says about them:

"Zebra and Wildebeest are found together on the African savanna grazing different parts of the same grass.
The Zebra grazes the harder parts of the plant whereas the Wildebeest prefers the softer parts.
A Zebra will move into an area of long grass before other herbivores and eat grass down to allow for new growth that is suitable for Wildebeest."

SampleMan: "...you pretend to understand why certain traits exist in some animals and not in others."

No "pretense", just trying to honestly answer your questions, which at least on the surface make no sense.
Basically, you seem to be saying: why is a wildebeest not a giraffe?
Well... because it's not.
And that demonstrates exactly what, in your mind?

SampleMan: "You are doing a fantastic job of proving my point about the silliness of people who claim some sort of purpose in evolutionary traits and lack thereof."

Purpose? Or function?
Of course biological features each have some function, almost without exception, so what exactly are you talking about?
Are you trying to distinguish philosophically between function and purpose?
And why would you bother to push such a silly idea?

[BroJoeK]

csivils: "Thus, your paycheck determines the subdivision.
The exact opposite of what I asked you to explain."

But what you asked was ridiculous, so I answered appropriately.
Sorry, FRiend, but it's you who are going nuts with your claims of "circular logic".
I "get" that you imagine you have some kind of weapon, a sword you can wield, to cut down any argument you dislike.
But what you're saying makes no sense in terms of ordinary English conversations.

And, I suspect that if you ever bothered to spell out clearly and simply what it is you're trying to say, instead of hiding behind your "circular" shield, it would be rather easy to dismantle.
Which, of course, is why you never do, right?

[SampleMan]

Of course biological features each have some function, almost without exception, so what exactly are you talking about?

Not really. What they do always have is a presumed function. Tigers need stripes and that serves a purpose, but lions and jaguars do not need stripes. A rather self-fulfilling premise. Do the stripes actually serve a purpose? Ditto for stripes on a zebra, do they serve a purpose? If the zebra had the same coloring as a gazelle you would never ask, why doesn't it have stripes. Obviously a fishes fins serve a purpose, but other features are just a guess. And if a tiger's stripes do provide a specific advantage, did the stripes evolve because they provided the tiger an advantage in its current environment, or did the tiger gravitate to environments where the stripes it was cursed with were actually an advantage?

Impossible to know in many cases.