Willful Ignorance of Evolution?

[_Some Schmo]

Something to consider:

...while natural selection reduces variability, and may even remove traits from a population entirely, it is not the only evolutionary mechanism. Genetic mutations, gene flow, genetic exchange from symbiotic organisms, genetic recombination, and neutral genetic drift all play important roles in evolutionary processes, and anyone who attempts to explain the complexity of life without considering all of these processes is presenting a one-sided and fundamentally inaccurate account of evolution. (Emphasis added)

It is common and actually encouraged for evolutionary biologists to disagree on the details, because the theory itself is evolving as new data is added to the mix. That it happened is not in dispute, but the details certainly are.

If you're sincerely interested in learning more about it, dart, I think you'll find answers to many of the questions you're asking here. Check out the "Shared misconceptions" section. The following is a quote from the introduction:

Most of us are happy to admit that we do not understand, say, string theory in physics, yet we are all convinced we understand evolution. In fact, as biologists are discovering, its consequences can be stranger than we ever imagined. Evolution must be the best-known yet worst-understood of all scientific theories.

[_Trevor]

I have heard assertions but nothing that sounds remotely plausible. From what I can tell it seems to be mostly a circular argument that takes evolution for granted, and then assumes this must account for the existence of life in all its varieties.

Head shaking. Oh brother.

[_The Dude]

What I don't get is how any of this explains the more complex scenarios. Like why humans gradually lost the monkey shaped facial features (is there a plausible explanation as to why humans could have survived better with less hair, blonde hair or blue eyes?) most of their body hair (what possible purpose did that serve?) most of their physical strength (seems to go against the entire idea of survival), their posture (did monkeys originally live in small caves that required them to hunch low? Did their future generations eventually leave the caves, leading to their upright posture?), etc. Saying it is about ecological pressures just seems like an easy way of bypassing a serious question that demands a serious and specific answer. There are clearly some well educated posters on this thread who have read extensively on this subject. Is this really the best answer available?

Neoteny is one of the best answers available. I don't think it's the complete story, but it probably accounts for a lot of the differences between apes and humans. Neoteny is the retention of juvenile features: less body hair, less physical strength, flattened faces, upright posture, longer period of brain growth and development, longer period of infancy, etc. If you compare humans to the great apes, we resemble infant apes much more than grown apes. The key idea here is that as evironmental and social conditions selected for bigger human brains, which require more time to develop and mature, there was an inevitable co-selection for the juvenile physical characteristics you mentioned.

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo's original claim was that this belief was not only ignorance, but willful ignorance.

There was one other thing I wanted to point out in response to this statement out that I forgot to mention.

The point of this thread was specifically that all of the ignorance on the topic of evolution was not actually willful, only some. I was proposing that good information is consciously or unconsciously blocked by those with a creationist viewpoint. The idea was that people with no stake in the debate either way also misunderstand evolution, casualties to the myths that are continually perpetuated. Hence, the question mark at the end of the thread title.

Yes, much of the ignorance is willful on the part of those who want creation to be true. That's obvious. But in their quest to remain ignorant, they're screwing over other people that are interested in the truth, wherever it leads them.

[_Moniker]

Yes, much of the ignorance is willful on the part of those who want creation to be true. That's obvious. But in their quest to remain ignorant, they're screwing over other people that are interested in the truth, wherever it leads them.

Just look to the Hovind - Shermer debate I posted (on page one of the thread) to see this in action.

[_Some Schmo]

Yes, much of the ignorance is willful on the part of those who want creation to be true. That's obvious. But in their quest to remain ignorant, they're screwing over other people that are interested in the truth, wherever it leads them.

Just look to the Hovind - Shermer debate I posted (on page one of the thread) to see this in action.

I meant to watch that but forgot. Glad you mentioned it.

I haven't finished it yet (I should be in bed already) but I watched both speakers' opening presentations and their 10 minute rebuttals and all I can say is... wow. That Hovind character is, for want of a better phrase, a complete and utter moron. His understanding of evolution is on par with a four-year-old child's. Either that, or he's the biggest liar one could imagine (which would likely explain why his best argument is that the scientists are all lying, something he repeats ad nauseum).

That was just embarrassing.

[_Moniker]

Oh, please do finish it when you have the time. I thought it was quite interesting. I'm about off to bed now, too. I can't believe I'm still up. Night! :)

[_beastie]

dart,

Your first assertion was this:

How does it explain why species X forked at some point in time and one group dropped 90% of its body hair, became physically weaker yet intellectually stronger, whereas the rest became some other variant of primate? What plausible scenario explains how this sort of adaptation took place? I know it is simply taken for granted that it must have happened, but nobody has actually explained it, other than to say that is how it must have happened since the alternative (Genesis) is just a myth.

You later amended this to:

I have heard assertions but nothing that sounds remotely plausible. From what I can tell it seems to be mostly a circular argument that takes evolution for granted, and then assumes this must account for the existence of life in all its varieties.

But the issue is the ignorance of evolution and whether or not it is understandable or "willful" as Schmo asserts. I think it is telling that so far two hard hitting proponents have disagreed with each other in this thread (Schmo says it is ignorance to say humans evolved from apes, whereas EAllusion says that it is a fair and accurate statement), and then Tarski proposed to answer something the dude said couldn't be answered because it was a non sequitur - so far I am in the middle of an analogy that is put on hold until step two finds its way into the thread. Now you're responding to a sincere question with a question.

If the answer is so readily available and obvious, why does it feel like I'm pulling teeth here?

Particularly since the topic here is ignorance of evolution, what I'd like to see is your explanation of the assertions you've "heard", and why they are not remotely plausible.

I would also be very interested in how you've educated yourself on the subject.

And, by the way, it feels like you're pulling teeth to you because the nuances in the responses being given are totally lost on you. This results in fog and confusion. To be brutally frank, I suspect those nuances are lost on you due to your own inadequate education (self or otherwise) on the topic.

[_EAllusion]

I'm still not seeing how this answers my question. Pointing out my failure to understand what has yet to be explained, isn't really helping anyone here.

Kevin, I explained it in a simple one sentence answer question. You retorted by asking how humans evolved. That's neither here nor there when we're just trying to understand in principle how populations of organisms diverge in such a way that some stay a part of an old classification while others are part of a new one. In fact, you could declare you find human evolution implausible without ever even needing to bring up the "how come there are still apes?" argument. Again, imagine a population organisms. This population is in constant flux. A subpopulation of those organisms splits off and changes. They change so much that they are now considered to be a different species than their ancestor population. Meanwhile, while the ancestor population has shifted to and fro, it still falls within the same species category. Both populations fill different ecological niches.Do you get the principle? In reality, it's even more complex as it is likely that that original population of organisms is still subject to linear change, splitting, and extinction events. Asking your question is as naïve as asking if the Pandas in American zoos are coming from China, how come there are still Pandas in China? Well, it's only a subset of them. Now you might have some questions as to how humans fit into this process, but if you get this principle, you are just asking about the process of human evolution and how we know it occured rather than the specific argument you brought up. Seriously, there's a reason that an major organization dedicated to defending the scientific case for a 10,000 year old earth thinks this argument is too ridiculous to use.

[_EAllusion]

In fairness, Kent Hovind is probably the single "dumbest" creationist there is. Since creationism is filled misunderstandings of fact and inference and corrupted with rampant dishonesty, it sometimes can be hard to appreciate differences in levels of badness among creationists. But there are differences, and Hovind is on the bottom of the barrel.