This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions - Comments

HourglassMemory's Avatar Comment 1 by HourglassMemory

Thank God an issue like that is coming out!

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:29:00 UTC | #154927

Wosret's Avatar Comment 2 by Wosret

Oh, oh, oh...but the earth isn't perfectly round (*ducks beer bottle*)

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:32:00 UTC | #154929

jo5ef's Avatar Comment 3 by jo5ef

"If you think you understand it, you don't know nearly enough about it"
I know what the writer means, but i think this comment encapsulates whats wrong with the way science is sometimes presented in the public arena. It is intepreted as "you lowly peasants should not even bother to try to understand important scientific concepts". I dont think Darwin or Dawkins would agree, or why have they written books targetted at lay audiences?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:35:00 UTC | #154932

Count von Count's Avatar Comment 4 by Count von Count

Fascinating.

I have recently been thinking that rather than having articles and debates on "evolution vs. creation," it might be more useful to put our energies into having articles like this one that simply explain evolution. Remember the wonder you felt when you first started to understand evolution? The next time you are about to get in the old "e.v.c" debate with someone, maybe try taking a time out to just explain to them the basic ideas. Try to make them see the beauty rather than shoot down their ideas. (If anyone tries this, let me know about your results!)

The subtitle echoes a bumper sticker I thought of (which could perhaps be made a bit more catchy):
"Don't believe in evolution? Maybe you just don't understand it."

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:18:00 UTC | #154943

Goldy's Avatar Comment 5 by Goldy

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
Maybe detractors and IDiots care to read teh damn thing for themselves before thinking (not, I admit, something they partake of too much)
Indeed, there is no excuse not to know everything
http://darwin-online.org.uk/

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:52:00 UTC | #154952

theantitheist's Avatar Comment 6 by theantitheist

Remember the wonder you felt when you first started to understand evolution?


Must say that i was bored about it, i was learning all the science stuff in school and you just tend to learn it and get on it with it.

I think this is why it's so important to keep ID out of the classroom. If i'd had mixed signals maybe i'd have been more resistant to it rather then just accept it as fact (I know this runs in parrallel with indoctrination but..). In the same way i've never checked how accurate WWII was, it was presented as fact and i have had no reason since to challange the fundamental facts.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:00:00 UTC | #154955

bentleyd's Avatar Comment 7 by bentleyd

Great article! Unfortunately from NewScientist.com it's just preaching to the choir.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:05:00 UTC | #154960

akado's Avatar Comment 8 by akado

YES!
awesome article!
I need this to hit on some christians around here that I have just bartely brought on the brink of giving up their religion! X3

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:16:00 UTC | #154962

dragonfirematrix's Avatar Comment 9 by dragonfirematrix

In response to the article, my opinion is: The Christians of America have no interest about the facts of life on planet Earth. They care not about proven evidence. Christians are only interested in the adherence of everyone to their fantasies and imaginary saviors.

Lets face it. There is almost zero hope for planet Earth.

Today, I listened to police, lawyers, and policy makers all of whom are having problems with the prospects of charging (let alone convicting) anyone in the Texas polygamy scandal. Repeatedly, I kept hearing stuff about religion, sects, and beliefs. It appeared that the social workers have their hands tied by the courts.

If America cannot convict the religious of child abuse because the beliefs of the religious preach the practices, then how can any of the religious (or conservative policy wonks) ever understand The Law of Evolution?

Hey, if religion does wrong, it is okay as long as it is faith-based. With the size of that Texas religious compound and community, I would guess the money for all of structures were flowing in even during the Texas governorship controlled by George W. Bush.

This is what I learned today.

I wish Pat Condell would do one of his fiery articles on religion in America. Pat, we need you.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:19:00 UTC | #154963

Damien White's Avatar Comment 10 by Damien White

Comment 4 by babrock:

"mothers and t odd female offspring of gay men should tend to be more fertile"

Um, they're gay. There won't BE any offspring. Tends to be a fundamental flaw in the, er, design....

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:58:00 UTC | #154975

Wosret's Avatar Comment 11 by Wosret

Homosexuality isn't restricted to males, and there is absolutely nothing that says homosexuals can't reproduce or have offspring. In case you haven't noticed, a good chunk of the majority of people are unattractive. It is not strange, or in anyway unheard of for people to have offspring with people they are not attracted to.

Because of the stigma against homosexuality by society, straight people tend to be adverse to the idea of even getting near a member of the same sex, untop of not being attracted to them. I am not sure, but I doubt this translates to the other extreme. I don't think there is a social stigma against homosexuals being near or having sex with members of the opposite sex, so I don't see a reason why they would be anymore adverse to the idea then they would be of having sex with anyone they don't find attractive. I could be wrong about that last part though, and it likely varies between people.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:50:00 UTC | #154988

secondsoprano's Avatar Comment 12 by secondsoprano

Um, they're gay. There won't BE any offspring.


Oh for FSM sake. We did this to death already in another thread. Can someone post a link?

Homosexuality. Infertility. Totally different things. OK?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:50:00 UTC | #154998

Christopher Davis's Avatar Comment 13 by Christopher Davis

"With the size of that Texas religious compound and community, I would guess the money for all of structures were flowing in even during the Texas governorship controlled by George W. Bush."---dogfirematrix #10

Sorry dogfire, can't blame this one on W. I'm pretty sure the majority of the people living in that compound came from Colorado City, Arizona, and I'm almost positive that is where most of the money came from. The FLDS has been fleecing the state of Arizona out of money for the past 70 years.

The compound in Texas was supposed to be a new "kingdom" for Warren Jeffs and his followers. Of course Jeffs got arrested last year for facilitating marriages between underage girls and 40-50 year old men. I haven't been following this story since I got called to active duty last Oct., but a little googling using "Warren Jeffs" and "Colorado City, Arizona" should make for some interesting reading if you are so inclined.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:07:00 UTC | #155000

Damien White's Avatar Comment 14 by Damien White

secondsoprano:

"Homosexuality. Infertility. Totally different things. OK?"

Never said they weren't. It's just that Male-to-male or female-to-female sex will not produce offspring.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:12:00 UTC | #155001

riki's Avatar Comment 15 by riki

Get yourself a gay couple, a lesbian couple and a turkey baster. Then before you know it, you've got a baby with four parents.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:20:00 UTC | #155002

secondsoprano's Avatar Comment 16 by secondsoprano

Never said they weren't. It's just that Male-to-male or female-to-female sex will not produce offspring.


True but irrelevant. What you said was that homosexuals would not have any offspring. This is self-evidently not true.

Take me for example: I'm homosexual, I have a child. My genes (including, for the sake of argument, my "gay" genes) are being passed on.

Homosexually orientated people have always been just as physically capable of producing offspring as bisexually and heterosexually oriented people. Whether they do that by heterosexual sex, turkey baster, etc doesn't change the fact that they are homosexual.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:33:00 UTC | #155003

secondsoprano's Avatar Comment 17 by secondsoprano

Get yourself a gay couple, a lesbian couple and a turkey baster. Then before you know it, you've got a baby with four parents.


... two of whom are homosexuals who have "produced offspring" in the biological sense.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:36:00 UTC | #155004

Sargeist's Avatar Comment 18 by Sargeist

Goldy said:

Indeed, there is no excuse not to know everything

Especially not in the Google Age. But this does mean that I end up always saying: "Does anyone know..., oh, ok, I'll look it up myself."

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:38:00 UTC | #155005

Greyman's Avatar Comment 19 by Greyman

Homosexuality does not prohibit mating with the opposite sex, just biases against choosing to do so.

If the genetic contributor in males also causes increased fertility in female offspring then there's a long term cancelling effect.

It would then become a trade off between decreased chance of replication in male generations versus an increased chance of replication in subsequent female ones.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:43:00 UTC | #155008

Damien White's Avatar Comment 20 by Damien White

Any children produced by heterosexual reproduction at the behest of or for the benefit of gay couples are still produced heterosexually.

Natural selection of any such children will not be affected by the ideology of their parents.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:58:00 UTC | #155011

secondsoprano's Avatar Comment 21 by secondsoprano

Natural selection of any such children will not be affected by the ideology of their parents.


It is not an ideology. Take your homophobia to some other board. It is not welcome here.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:03:00 UTC | #155012

Darwin's badger's Avatar Comment 22 by Darwin's badger

Comment #163064 by Damien White on April 17, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Any children produced by heterosexual reproduction at the behest of or for the benefit of gay couples are still produced heterosexually.

Natural selection of any such children will not be affected by the ideology of their parents.

Ideology? WTF are you on?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:31:00 UTC | #155020

DavidJGrossman's Avatar Comment 23 by DavidJGrossman

"It is not an ideology. Take your homophobia to some other board. It is not welcome here."

You are obviously unaware of the homosexual agenda:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28970

- Dave

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:18:00 UTC | #155031

PeterRobertson's Avatar Comment 24 by PeterRobertson

You could imagine a genetic variant that would increase a woman's fertility by more than (say) 10% and have the side effect that 10% of her descendants would be homosexual.

Whether or not the homosexuals produced offspring, the variant would confer a net advantage and so could be propagated by the increased number of reproducing offspring.

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:19:00 UTC | #155032

Daniel Palmer's Avatar Comment 25 by Daniel Palmer

From the article:

Most [mutations] make no difference to our bodies, because most of our DNA is useless junk anyway.


It's a little ironic that this article, in purporting to dispel misconceptions about evolution, furthers another.

Even if 'junk' DNA has no apparent morphological, phenotypic effect, that is not to say that it serves no purpose.

Grrr.

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:28:00 UTC | #155034

NJS's Avatar Comment 26 by NJS

Correct me if I'm wrong but the research on homosexuality showed that the SIBLINGS of homosexual men were on average more fertile than those of heterosexuals.

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:34:00 UTC | #155037

Ygern's Avatar Comment 27 by Ygern

This is a very interesting collection of articles.

The comments section on New Scientist are a bit depressing. So many idiots rushed in to defend their various gods as if articles in a Science Journal were an affront to their dignity.

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:42:00 UTC | #155040

Bueller_007's Avatar Comment 28 by Bueller_007

"The comments section on New Scientist are a bit depressing. So many idiots rushed in to defend their various gods as if articles in a Science Journal were an affront to their dignity."


This is what happens when the IDiots at Uncommon Descent link to an article.

I'd almost recommend going over there now to see some of the laughable comments. (Some people are even defending Biblical inerrancy.)

Of course, those of us with the faculty of reason are not able to comment on that blog because they screen all the posts. I believe my Uncommon Descent account was blocked merely for linking to Expelled.

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:32:00 UTC | #155057

fretmeister's Avatar Comment 29 by fretmeister

I usually get the magazine.

Can't see it changes anything though - I don't see many people picking it up with their copy of 'Nuts'

Shame really - the mag is a pretty good read most of the time.

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:37:00 UTC | #155059

riki's Avatar Comment 30 by riki

It's great to see that New Scientist have published an article on this. Though I'm sure they'll take some heat from the Creationists.

btw who was it that said they wanted to be a fruit fly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7350403.stm

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:08:00 UTC | #155085