TheyCallThisWork: Do you see the problem with that graph? It implies that about 90% of people have a below average IQ.

I think the real problem here is that you take an Internet meme seriously.

GeorgeBurns: A question for people here who actually know anything about evolution:

Ok, so I know a lot of theoretical work has been done since Darwin (like Genetic Altruism, etc.) but what I don't hear about it the problem of people.

No doubts, we share a common ancestor with slime mold (or maybe life sprung up in isolated locations all over earth) - I don't doubt that. But what happens when free will, or may hyper intelligence interferes with the natural course of evolution.

For example, a woman can make herself a more attractive mate by getting plastic surgery, and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes. And it's not even known if there is a human baseline for "attractiveness" like there is in other species.

The question is, is there a theory of evolution that deals with this problem? If so, what is it?

Well a portion of those people will die in surgery (or the doctor will screw up and make the patient uglier) so I guess that sort of evens thing out.

Codyl: Am I too late to join the typical group-think of farkers saying how Christians are stupid?

Oh well... As long as I make it for Act II where white liberals self loath and make fun of how dumb Americans in general are.

Cody

Stupidity implies one who cannot understand thins due to an inherent mental disability. Stupid people should be pitied, not despised. No, the thing that bothers us about some creationists (not Christians, creationists, different things) is willful ignorance.

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: goalie0002: I like how they present evolution as a fact, and not a theory, and we MUST believe and understand it or we're idiots.

Yes, exactly. You farking moran.

This will do.


Biological Evolution: Fact

You don't have to like it or accept it, but not doing so proves that you're retarded.

James F. Campbell: This is a joke, right?

That's what I thought about this article too. :-)

TheyCallThisWork: It's just that everyone is hung up on looking at it in reverse.

How do you mean?

It's obvious that evolution does not work in reverse. If a genetic line gets to a stage of evolution and gets stuck, it can't backtrack and try another course. It has to proceed from where it is.

But how else can we understand evolution without looking at it in reverse?

mightybaldking: I think Rev. Comfort and Kirk Cameron have studied evolution to a higher level than I have.

Mr. Comfort claimed, in a now redacted blog posting, that ants possess skulls. Such a statement demonstrates that Mr. Comfort possesses absolutely no understanding of biology.

the-meter-man: The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.

I agree, National Sales tax FTW

T.rex: i generally believe in some tenets of evolution, but i don't believe in 'survival of the fittest'. I don't think one species displaces another, just because it was lucky enough to have some genetic adaption which suits it for its environment.

i think instead, all species are always currently undergoing minute changes at the cellular level which presumably make them ALL more suited to the environment.... And eventually, species become unregonizable from their ancestors.

Species, don't dissapear, they evolve to something else.. (not including species that human made go extinct.

So no species, besides the ones we made go extinct, has ever gone extinct?

. . .

You realize that is, like, momentously wrong? Evolution happens in branches. One species evolving into another usually involves an offshoot of the original species surviving while the original species goes extinct.

ThrobblefootSpectre: James F. Campbell: This is a joke, right?

That's what I thought about this article too. :-)

It's silly for you to say that people can't be skeptical of something if they don't know about it. Have you even met a Christian from America? They can be totally ignorant about a topic but still have an opinion on it.

Nice to see the right-wing puts the US in the same group as Russia, South Africa, and Egypt.

Way to go, guys. Why don't you think about moving to one of these places that embrace your ideals?

ASeriesOfTubes: And think of how much farther ahead of everyone else we would be if we didn't count nuked Kansas.

Yay!

goalie0002: I like how they present evolution as a fact, and not a theory, and we MUST believe and understand it or we're idiots.

Evolution IS a fact.

And there is a theory of evolution that attempts to explain that fact.

TheyCallThisWork: Evolution is really the simplest thing in the world to understand. It's just that everyone is hung up on looking at it in reverse. It doesn't work in reverse. It only works moving forward.

I know a lot of Farkers like to take shots at Dawkins, but The Selfish Gene is one of the most important books you'll ever read. It has applications well outside of biological evolution. It makes no difference that Dawkins is a giant militant asshole.
.
.
.
Darwin's Rottweiler....
.
.
.
/he's got a bark
//and a bite....
///good book

xria: Yeah, yeah, "help I am being oppressed".

Why don't you campaign for a new amendment in the consititution: Freedom from criticism.
=======

Hmm... Except I'm not saying "Help I'm being oppressed" at all... Nor do I feel I'm being oppressed.

And why would I want freedom from criticism. I think it's healthy.

I was just poking fun at a predictable bit of fark group-think that comes around on posts like this. You're kinda helping me make my point.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Nice to see the right-wing puts the US in the same group as Russia, South Africa, and Egypt.

Who knew Russians were such dumbasses?

I knew they were racist homophobes. Now I find out they're scientific illiterates, too?

Maybe it's all the vodak.

TheyCallThisWork: James F. Campbell:

Do you see the problem with that graph? It implies that about 90% of people have a below average IQ.

No it doesn't. It implies 90% of the people sampled have a below average IQ. Not all samples are going to be representative of the entire population, it depends on the nature of the sampling, and - especially with relative few data points like in this case - random variability.

Honestly, I don't think this is exactly an application of the Dunning-Kruger effect here. When I think of Dunning-Kruger, I think of the guy who took Econ 101 in college and now thinks he knows how to fix the world, or the person who watches Dr. Phil and thinks he knows all about people. Your basic know-it-all, not unlike a lot of Farkers, myself included sometimes.

The phenomenon in the article here is more along the lines of "people who receive all their information from a biased source," as I presume that many self-proclaimed "experts" on evolution got their views from their church groups. Like people who consider themselves experts on President Obama because they frequented Free Republic and now "know" all about his birth certificate. I don't know if there's a name for this pheonomenon, but I don't think it's Dunning-Kruger.

chaoswolf: Biological Evolution: Fact

You don't have to like it or accept it, but not doing so proves that you're retarded.



And the TRUTH shall set you free!

Codyl: I was just poking fun at a predictable bit of fark group-think that comes around on posts like this.

I was going to respond to this, but I realized you'd be a waste of time.

Natural selection does not produce new species. Men do not come from apes.

The only thing that natural selection does is ensure survival of the fittest.

GeorgeBurns: For example, a woman can make herself a more attractive mate by getting plastic surgery, and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes. And it's not even known if there is a human baseline for "attractiveness" like there is in other species.

The question is, is there a theory of evolution that deals with this problem? If so, what is it?

What "problem"? That an ugly person might pass on their genes by using plastic surgery? I guess that means that in the future there will still be ugly people. Beer has been taking care of this for the last couple millennia. Plastic surgery won't make a difference. What "inferior" genes are getting passed on that don't already get passed on when somebody goes home with an ugly girl after too many drinks?

T.rex: I don't think one species displaces another, just because it was lucky enough to have some genetic adaption which suits it for its environment.

It's just statistics. Let's say that two brothers are born. Brother A has version A of a certain allele, which makes him breed 2% more efficiently. Brother B has the normal B version. He's just normal.

After about 35 generations, Brother A's genes should have been passed on twice as often as Brother B's.

The war might be completely invisible, but there is a competition going on, at the molecular level. Just because of numbers, Brother A's offspring will probably be more likely to survives famines, they'll find mates more often, they'll be more likely to become Alpha members, etc. In time, nearly every member of the population will have allele A.

I suppose the idea of a "species" is a little arbitrary, but, at the level of the gene itself, A will eradicate B.

letrole: Men do not come from apes.

read more fark and say that again

xria: No it doesn't. It implies 90% of the people sampled have a below average IQ. Not all samples are going to be representative of the entire population, it depends on the nature of the sampling, and - especially with relative few data points like in this case - random variability.

Actually, that isn't even the case. You're both mistaken about what the graph represents. Here's the original graph:


/hot
//If it doesn't work, click here.

This is, apparently, from you television thingy that you push into your faces for several hours a day. How ironic.

But not of English.

James F. Campbell: ThrobblefootSpectre: James F. Campbell: This is a joke, right?

That's what I thought about this article too. :-)

It's silly for you to say that people can't be skeptical of something if they don't know about it. Have you even met a Christian from America? They can be totally ignorant about a topic but still have an opinion on it.

You say "Have you ever met a Christian from American" like they're some type of oddity. More than 3 out of every 4 Americans identify themselves as a Christian.

Which is why I find it so odd that comments on Fark, for the most part, are generally so anti-Christian. It's like everyone against religion all bunches up on this site to talk about how dumb Christians are and how great Jon Stewart is.

What - did all the moderate mods take the day off leaving the liberal mods to green light all this shiat?

APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/lkctl7
(copy and paste)

Super Chronic: I don't think this is exactly an application of the Dunning-Kruger effect here.

Dunning-Kruger has to do with people being so ignorant that they don't accurately estimate their own ignorance. Asking a bunch of ignorant yokel-on-the-street types how well they understand a technical subject, where misunderstanding is almost constantly displayed by a large segment of the public? Seems in the neighborhood.

eraser8: TheyCallThisWork: It's just that everyone is hung up on looking at it in reverse.

How do you mean?

It's obvious that evolution does not work in reverse. If a genetic line gets to a stage of evolution and gets stuck, it can't backtrack and try another course. It has to proceed from where it is.

But how else can we understand evolution without looking at it in reverse?

What I mean is that people have a tendency to see how things are now and then look at changes in the past as somehow moving "towards" the present.

Evolution is a process of random crap getting messed up at the molecular level, and then dying off 99 percent of the time, while 1% of these changes are mildly beneficial. Most people tend to see it as a movement toward some sort of current "perfection", which it most definitely is not.

Codyl: Which is why I find it so odd that comments on Fark, for the most part, are generally so anti-Christian. It's like everyone against religion all bunches up on this site to talk about how dumb Christians are and how great Jon Stewart is.

Go pray about it, kid.

T.rex: i generally believe in some tenets of evolution, but i don't believe in 'survival of the fittest'. I don't think one species displaces another, just because it was lucky enough to have some genetic adaption which suits it for its environment.

I'm struggling with finding an easier way to explain this to you. Members of a population that are slightly better-adapted are more likely to survive and reproduce. It's that simple.

What is up with all these piss-poor headlines lately? The grammatical errors make my brain hurt.

James F. Campbell: Go pray about it, kid.

That's a candy bar in your pastor's front pocket, boy. A big chewy, sweet candy just for you.

TheyCallThisWork: What I mean is that people have a tendency to see how things are now and then look at changes in the past as somehow moving "towards" the present.

Are you saying that some people see evolution as purposeful, as some sort of pathway to a grand "design"?

I don't understand how people like that would differ substantially from creationists.

headstone: Darwin's Rottweiler

Too true. I love when he's practically begging Stephen Jay Gould to stop being such a pussy.

eraser8: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Nice to see the right-wing puts the US in the same group as Russia, South Africa, and Egypt.

Who knew Russians were such dumbasses?

I knew they were racist homophobes. Now I find out they're scientific illiterates, too?

Maybe it's all the vodak.

The Russians also are quite superstitious on average. Quite common for even college educated people to believe in the evil eye and such. Shows what good decades of government enforced atheism does. . .

gorgor: APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/lkctl7
(copy and paste)
.
.
.
Gorgor, that was just farkin' beauteeful.

eraser8: TheyCallThisWork: What I mean is that people have a tendency to see how things are now and then look at changes in the past as somehow moving "towards" the present.

Are you saying that some people see evolution as purposeful, as some sort of pathway to a grand "design"?

I don't understand how people like that would differ substantially from creationists.

It's the same error in thinking without the involvement of religious mythology.

Codyl: It's like everyone against religion all bunches up on this site to talk about how dumb Christians are and how great Jon Stewart is.

what sucks is that the best evidence for evolution is in of itself, very complicated.

mitochondria dude...mitochondria...

gorgor: APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/lkctl7
(copy and paste)

Lol. . . I love the banana argument. Yeah, it does fit right in your hand, because humans cultivated them and guided them towards that. Bananas before domestication were, IIRC, much smaller and less palatable. Humans have been "intelligently designing" plants and animals for a very long time. Not always purposefully.

goldielox: what sucks is that the best evidence for evolution is in of itself, very complicated.

mitochondria dude...mitochondria...
.
.
.
....and.....
.
.
.
/your's fell out
//so I gave you one of mine.

eraser8: TheyCallThisWork: What I mean is that people have a tendency to see how things are now and then look at changes in the past as somehow moving "towards" the present.

Are you saying that some people see evolution as purposeful, as some sort of pathway to a grand "design"?

I don't understand how people like that would differ substantially from creationists.

Neither do they, which is why it's so scary. Here's an example:

Q: Why do fish have fins?
A: Because fish live in water and they're a great help for swimming.

The problem is, that's entirely wrong. The real answer is

A: Over the course of millions of years, the DNA of some bloodline got so messed up that weird projections sprouted out of their bodies. It's a good thing they were living in water, or else they'd be really farked.

yeah... I don't think so...
unless you call first hand experience "understanding"
But those people can't voice their true understanding of evolution anymore.

letrole: Men do not come from apes.

I did some checking and you are correct. Saying that men came from apes suggests there is a difference. According to wiki: An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates. Therefore, we can't "come from" apes as we are still apes.

RemyDuron: Yeah, it does fit right in your hand, because humans cultivated them and guided them towards that.

It amazes me how many people are completely unaware that the animals and plants that are farmed for food^* are pretty much all products of artificial selection. "God" didn't create the modern cow; man did.

* It's not just food plants and animals, of course.