Did anyone else notice today...?

Question

the substantially increased number of people "asking" questions about how evolution has been refuted. I understand it is because of this recent article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6937476.stm), but what does this mean?

a) that they don't have any real idea what evolution is all about?
b) that the press does a bad job reporting these finds, sensationalizing them to create headlines?
c) that biology teachers are failing there students?
d) anything else I haven't thought of?
e) all of the above and possibly more?

This is obviously just your opinion, I'm aware. But I'd like some insight from the some of you other bio people out there.

Thanks, Nick...I have one to, its just today I've spent it waiting on the guys from Lowe's to deliver my new dryer. (sometime between 9:00 and 5:00, yeah, right...why don't they just say "It'll be lucky if you get it before you go to bed...)

Also, to everyone, elucidation on why you think one thing or another is always welcome.

Seeing much more on R&S, secret. Didn't sleep well last night and saw it blow up over there for a while, followed by more of the same here today.

Sorry about the link.

little nicky--yeah, seen parts of "Jesus Camp"...couldn't hardly stand to watch too much of it

I deal with the "children" every year. Too much reinforcement from trusted authority figures over the previous 15 years by the time they get to me. I just try not to be preachy and try to assure them that evolution says nothing for or against their beliefs. Actually asked the same question a month or two ago: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlMDgc2yl3ZnAbhXRO50C_Xsy6IX?qid=20070717191129AAtKgT0

Answer 1

I did indeed notice it. (a) and (c) are of course old news.

The one that bothers me today is (b) ... just how badly can science reporters botch things up.

The headline in the BBC article (your link seems broken):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6937476.stm
reads:
"Finds test human origins theory"
And of course this is interpreted by creationists to read "Finds disprove theory of human origins through evolution."

The headline in the Yahoo news item (which is from AP):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution
is even worse ... it reads:
"Fossils challenge old evoluton theory"

Creationists read that headline and think "old evolution theory" means Darwin.

Of course, if you actually read either article, you see that the scientists go out of their way to disclaim that the find does NOT challenge Darwin or evolution in any way. In fact, it further reinforces the point ... that scientists have been clamoring for decades ... that the image of a linear progression from species to species, like rungs on a ladder, is AWFUL.

But creationists will not actually read past the headline. That is the extent of their scientific research.

After all, you don't get to be a creationist by a keen attention to detail and a talent for deep research.

Answer 2

Definitely e.

The fact is that most Americans are practically scientifically illiterate. Even worse it seems like a lot of science teachers are as well.

I suppose this is news about H. habilis and H. erectus, but if I recall correctly, at one time it was believed that Neanderthals evolved into Cro-Magnon (i.e. modern) humans while the current body of evidence shows that they lived at the same time and in the same territory and maybe even interbred (though that one is hotly debated).

In any case, no scientifically literate person would consider that discovery an argument against evolution. It's just a reorganization of the human family tree.

Answer 3

I'd have to say the answer is e. I saw that article as well. It gives me heartburn that the general public does not understand science. The teachers have a real hard time with evolution though. How do you deal with some child in a classroom telling the teacher that it's not true. They go to church and get their heads filled with mythological events and preachers who say that evolution is of the devil. Have you seen the movie "Jesus Camp"?

Answer 4

in this instance i think the various news sources did a terrible job reporting this story touting it as "a major challenge to old theory" which is obviously not true.

but i certainly think a large moajority of people really have no idea what evolution is about and these articles certainly are not helping

Answer 5

It's e, I'm afraid.

What bothers me the most is actually how many scientists thought this was news.... we've plenty of cohabiting species and surviving ancestor species...

And we've fossil evidence for OTHER early humans living in the same location as different branches on our tree.

It's like....you know vervets and chimps? Vervets are like the chimp's favorite food....and they both evolved from common ancestors.

Answer 6

I noticed. Many of the people responding to this question also responded to mine which was indeed prompted by the news article. I am surprised to be impressed by answers here from some people who I think answered my question very poorly.

a) To me evolution is summed up with charts that a cartoonist made many years ago. The charts were put into books and posters and magazines. The charts show a few things supported by evidence combined with many things that are not. You all know the diagrams I mean. There are no indications in them of what is fact and what is wild speculation. To me the study of life and interactions with environment is biology, not evolution. Mutations and genetics to me are micro biology. When you use the term evolution, that picture pops into my mind and I prepare to hear athiestic propaganda.

b) The title placed on the article did very little to describe the content. Many people read only the title before seeing questions in the Answers forums. I read the majority of the article but not every word.

c) In any category, some teachers are failing their students. We leave the classroom with what was in the text during that snapshot in time. Few of us find time in our lives to keep completely up to date on subjects such as this one. We talk about children picking up false concepts from our parents and not letting go of them, but what about false concepts we learn in school for which there is no recall? My high school physics teacher told us that glass is a liquid. Most of my class mates probably still think that is true and are teaching it to their kids. It takes years (generations?) to overcome false information. Any speculation should be clearly labeled as such. If you are putting a big poster on the wall showing what you think are evolutionary steps, put a big question mark and lighten the print on the animals that are speculation.

d) What I think you didn't consider is that evolution has been presented over the years in a way inconsistant with good scientific principle. When the periodic table of elements was being developed, the missing squares weren't filled through speculation. They were left blank until the facts were known. Wild speculation about evolution seems to be everywhere. I expect to see wild speculation in a religious or philosophical debate, not in a science class.

Some reading this probably think I am under-educated and my opinion should be dismissed. For the record, I hold a B.S. degree in engineering and my final score in Calculus based Physics 2 was 99.97% I think I earned a B in high school Biology, but I don't recall for sure.

There are many who spend their days and nights in R&S trying to tell people that evolution proves there is no God. I don't believe many of those people understand any more about biology than the cartoon we were presented with so many years ago. Those same people tend to argue that evolution is some fixed, completely understood law of science. Those arguements help create a definition of evolution that is not supported within science.

So yes, I think that the article refuted the theory of evolution that was presented to me in high school. I think it clearly offered evidence that the cartoonist showed false information. I do not think it refuted micro biology.

Answer 7

I think the answer is "e".

Answer 8

no, i have a life

Answer 9

.....