Evolution Denialism in Universities

[Chris Hegarty]

I've had a bit of a problem lately. Perhaps I'm becoming more perceptive, but I've noticed a strong rash of evolution denialism at the collegiate level. I'm an undergrad at Purdue University, itself a very science-research school and (one would think) not very likely to harbor many evolution denialists. However, some college Christian fundamentalist group has started spewing large numbers of Jack Chick pamphlets all over the place. Here's a link if you haven't seen it (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp). I say "some college Christian fundamentalist group" because there are a lot of them at Purdue. So, therefore, I have a few questions to field to you all:

1) Have any of you college types noticed an increase in evolution denialism in colleges lately? There was the Cameron Origin of Species baloney a while back, but is this becoming more pervasive?

2) If this movement is becoming more common in colleges and universities, why and how?

3) Are college fundamentalist groups becoming more militant about their "mission"? They seem so to me, but I don't have much of a frame of reference; I'm kind of a spring chicken.

Thanks in advance for your perspectives. I posted my whole story about my "incident" up on my blog (http://hegartyblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/the-mystery-of-the-clumsy-pamphlet/)because if I posted it here I'd violate RULE TEN fairly badly.

[zaphod2016]

I've had a bit of a problem lately. Perhaps I'm becoming more perceptive, but I've noticed a strong rash of evolution denialism at the collegiate level.

Why not show this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8609192.stm) to the department head?


South African fossils could be new hominid species

Many scientists regard the Australopithecines as being directly ancestral to Homo but the precise placement of A. sediba in the human family tree is already proving controversial, with some scientists arguing the species may well be a Homo itself.


It seems to me all rational debate has settled on evolution long ago, and has now proceeded to debate the family tree itself.

The denialists are so behind the times they are missing the current debates altogether.

[Chris Hegarty]

It seems to me all rational debate has settled on evolution long ago, and has now proceeded to debate the family tree itself.

The denialists are so behind the times they are missing the current debates altogether.

The problem isn't actual debate on evolution; it is, as you have said, completely settled. The problem is that (at least in my experience) more people at the collegiate level are denying evolution, and I'm wondering why. Is there some societal movement that has caused these groups to become so much more acrid even in the face of mounting evidence?

[drkitten]

The problem isn't actual debate on evolution; it is, as you have said, completely settled. The problem is that (at least in my experience) more people at the collegiate level are denying evolution, and I'm wondering why. Is there some societal movement that has caused these groups to become so much more acrid even in the face of mounting evidence?

Teh Interwebz.

The same societal movement that has caused other groups to believe that it's perfectly okay to make death threats against US senators or to shoot abortionists in the middle of a church service.

A long, long time ago (I can still remember how that music used to make me,... sorry, I drifted off there) you got most of your information from the same sources that your neighbors did. We all read the Daily Bugle and watched Channel 1 News, and if I wanted to know whether Bigfoot had been instrumental in getting the UFOs to fake evidence of the Holocaust, I'd probably ask my neighbor and he would tell me I was bonkers.

If I wanted to know what D&D was like, I had to wait for someone to hand me a copy of Chick's Dark Dungeons tract.

Today I know that my neighbor is part of the anti-Bigfoot conspiracy sheepie because Google told me so, and I can download all the Chick tracts I like in the privacy of my own parents' basement.

[Polaris]

The problem isn't actual debate on evolution; it is, as you have said, completely settled. The problem is that (at least in my experience) more people at the collegiate level are denying evolution, and I'm wondering why. Is there some societal movement that has caused these groups to become so much more acrid even in the face of mounting evidence?

It's probably some general reason in the world zeitgeist that will make sense to sociologists in a few decades or maybe a century, but that we're too close to right now to recognize. It's not like the religious resurgence is happening in the US alone.

More to topic, I only came across this once from any students when I was in college (less than a decade ago IIRC) - I specify "students" because we would occasionally have a "preacher" come to the common ground at school and call all the women whores and the men homosexuals, hoping he'd get punched so he could sue.

Anyway, in geography a non-traditional student (female in her 40s) interrupted the professor during the class on the formation of the earth as it related to plate tectonics to inform us all that "the earth was 5000 years old because it said so in the Bible and nobody could tell her otherwise". She spent the rest of the class shaking her head at everything the professor said.

This was a small liberal arts college in West Virginia, for what it's worth.

There was another guy during my freshman year who somehow got had fliers sent to everybody's dorm mailbox about "Communism on Campus" (it had something to do with abortion I later found out - what the connection was I didn't care enough to learn). I think he was placed on academic probation for something unrelated later in the year, or maybe he just dropped out to go blow up Planned Parenthoods.

[BenBurch]

I think that it is a rebellion against a reality that seems to deny that the human condition is in any way special, and by extension a rebellion against a society in which the subject feels increasingly to be just one of the billions of identical, expendable parts.

[drkitten]

It's probably some general reason in the world zeitgeist that will make sense to sociologists in a few decades or maybe a century, but that we're too close to right now to recognize. It's not like the religious resurgence is happening in the US alone.

Nah, I really think it's just that the nutcases have become more organized.

We saw something like this (at least in the USA) in the early Reagan years with the Moral Majority, which managed to vault itself into national prominence by putting a single voice and spokesman to the disorganized mass that evangelical Christianity has been since the 1920s and the collapse of the big tent revival organizers.

We saw something like this when Rush revitalized talk radio.

On a smaller scale, we saw something like this when Oprah started her book club and all of a sudden the single biggest predictor of book sales was whether Oprah liked it.

The difference in all of these cases, of course, is that they're centralized and rely heavily on conventional mass-media to deliver a particular person's message -- with the Net, nutcases can self-organized on a larger scale. Some people use this for flash mobs, others use it to prove that Darwin was really Bigfoot.

[NewtonTrino]

Nah, I really think it's just that the nutcases have become more organized.

We saw something like this (at least in the USA) in the early Reagan years with the Moral Majority, which managed to vault itself into national prominence by putting a single voice and spokesman to the disorganized mass that evangelical Christianity has been since the 1920s and the collapse of the big tent revival organizers.

We saw something like this when Rush revitalized talk radio.

On a smaller scale, we saw something like this when Oprah started her book club and all of a sudden the single biggest predictor of book sales was whether Oprah liked it.

The difference in all of these cases, of course, is that they're centralized and rely heavily on conventional mass-media to deliver a particular person's message -- with the Net, nutcases can self-organized on a larger scale. Some people use this for flash mobs, others use it to prove that Darwin was really Bigfoot.


Hold on, you think all evangelical christians are nutcases?

[Chris Hegarty]

I think that it is a rebellion against a reality that seems to deny that the human condition is in any way special, and by extension a rebellion against a society in which the subject feels increasingly to be just one of the billions of identical, expendable parts.

I still don't understand why people don't think that this is an awesome and very comforting reality.

Anyway, in geography a non-traditional student (female in her 40s) interrupted the professor during the class on the formation of the earth as it related to plate tectonics to inform us all that "the earth was 5000 years old because it said so in the Bible and nobody could tell her otherwise". She spent the rest of the class shaking her head at everything the professor said.

There were several trolls in an evolutionary anthropology class I took a while back. Essentially, they would swarm the professor with "well, the bible doesn't say it, so it musn't be true" observations and, after class, they'd attempt to corner other students and tell us exactly why everything the professor said was untrue. They got a little upset when I told them to blow it out their :eek:es.

[geni]

Well my uni's islamic society gave it a go but that was a few years back. Polling suggests that there are a lot of creationists out there. That the UK ones are still not very vocal is something to be relived by.

[Wowbagger]

This will tend to happen. It is far, far easier and much more intuitively appealing to accept the idea of Special Creation somehow being important to life; than it is to do all the hard work necessary to find out otherwise.

So, it doesn't surprise me that Evolution Denialism is going to continue to be a problem, for a long, long time.

The funny thing is that it is not all despair and doom: Most creationists actually accept almost all of evolutionary ideas. And, they will often accept most new ones that come about. They just don't realize it. They will simply call them something else ("It's not evolution, because it's just an example of population dynamics"), or they will do a recon to cover their old ideas ("It's not evo/devo: It's front-loading! Yeah, that's it!")

It is still important for most people to learn about how life works, for several reasons: One of which is to have a better understanding of any bio-technologies that come about, and how to handle them effectively.

But, at the same time, most of the actual protesting is fairly thin and superficial. At the end of the day, they will still be forced to accept the findings of evo/devo, even if they call it something else.

[zaphod2016]

The problem isn't actual debate on evolution; it is, as you have said, completely settled. The problem is that (at least in my experience) more people at the collegiate level are denying evolution, and I'm wondering why.

Students or teachers?

If teachers appear to be more anti-evolution than before, I suggest marching to the department head's office and formally complaining. If necessary, start a petition first, to show your fellow students would also like science-based science education.

If students appear to be more anti-evolution, I would second those above who discuss the Internet's influence. I would also suggest our current society encourages a lot of people to go to college who, quite frankly, don't belong there.

[Chris Hegarty]

Students or teachers?

There are a lot of undergrads and grad students, but I'm fairly sure that very few of them are in any type of biological science. As for profs, there are a couple, but one's in library science and the other's in political science.

If students appear to be more anti-evolution, I would second those above who discuss the Internet's influence. I would also suggest our current society encourages a lot of people to go to college who, quite frankly, don't belong there.

I definitely agree that the Internet is a huge influence; I've read up a little on some websites, and they have an incredibly sophisticated game plan for how, where, and when they will attempt to hook people on creationism.

[drkitten]

Hold on, you think all evangelical christians are nutcases?

And, as usual, Newton demonstrates that he has no reading comprehension skills to speak of.

Are all evangelical Christians evolution deniers? Of course not -- although almost all evolution deniers are evangelical Christians (and nutcases).

[drkitten]

I still don't understand why people don't think that this is an awesome and very comforting reality.

Because it's not very "special." Everyone likes feeling "special," which is one of the things that a lot of marketing firms have used to their advantage.

How many times have you seen teenage girls on TV walk past the cutest guy in school and then gasp "He smiled at me! He noticed me!" or something equally inane? If you've not watched TV in a while, check out many of the Foxtrot strips involving Paige.

This is people just walking past the universe and trying to convince themselves that "It smiled at me! it noticed me!"

[NewtonTrino]

And, as usual, Newton demonstrates that he has no reading comprehension skills to speak of.

Are all evangelical Christians evolution deniers? Of course not -- although almost all evolution deniers are evangelical Christians (and nutcases).

So everyone who denies evolution is a nutcase?

[quixotecoyote]

Ohhh, hang in there Newton, you've almost got im! You'll nail im for SURE this time!

[NewtonTrino]

Ohhh, hang in there Newton, you've almost got im! You'll nail im for SURE this time!

Ha, I doubt it.

Besides I thought he was a she for some reason.

[quixotecoyote]

It's the "kitten"

It got me too at first

[NewtonTrino]

It's the "kitten"

It got me too at first

I actually originally assumed male but then I thought someone else said she somewhere.

Doesn't matter anyway.

[Cainkane1]

I've had a bit of a problem lately. Perhaps I'm becoming more perceptive, but I've noticed a strong rash of evolution denialism at the collegiate level. I'm an undergrad at Purdue University, itself a very science-research school and (one would think) not very likely to harbor many evolution denialists. However, some college Christian fundamentalist group has started spewing large numbers of Jack Chick pamphlets all over the place. Here's a link if you haven't seen it (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp). I say "some college Christian fundamentalist group" because there are a lot of them at Purdue. So, therefore, I have a few questions to field to you all:

1) Have any of you college types noticed an increase in evolution denialism in colleges lately? There was the Cameron Origin of Species baloney a while back, but is this becoming more pervasive?

2) If this movement is becoming more common in colleges and universities, why and how?

3) Are college fundamentalist groups becoming more militant about their "mission"? They seem so to me, but I don't have much of a frame of reference; I'm kind of a spring chicken.

Thanks in advance for your perspectives. I posted my whole story about my "incident" up on my blog (http://hegartyblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/the-mystery-of-the-clumsy-pamphlet/)because if I posted it here I'd violate RULE TEN fairly badly.
Its my guess that with the decline of religion in the USA and high profile atheism on the rise these people feel threatened and are trying to fight back.

[zaphod2016]

So everyone who denies evolution is a nutcase?

Nutcase is a bad word; vague definition, and insulting to boot.

I'd say almost everyone who denies evolution is anti-science, and the rest are either misinformed or (a tiny, tiny minority) may be on the verge of an exciting scientific breakthrough that will correct our understanding of evolution, not abolish it.

[NewtonTrino]

Nutcase is a bad word; vague definition, and insulting to boot.

I'd say almost everyone who denies evolution is anti-science, and the rest are either misinformed or (a tiny, tiny minority) may be on the verge of an exciting scientific breakthrough that will correct our understanding of evolution, not abolish it.

But if we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

DrKitten????? help!!!

[dasmiller]

But if we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

Still in progress. Ever notice how every year there are more people and fewer monkeys?

. . . it was a joke, sheesh!

[little grey rabbit]

View Post
I've had a bit of a problem lately. Perhaps I'm becoming more perceptive, but I've noticed a strong rash of evolution denialism at the collegiate level. I'm an undergrad at Purdue University, itself a very science-research school and (one would think) not very likely to harbor many evolution denialists. However, some college Christian fundamentalist group has started spewing large numbers of Jack Chick pamphlets all over the place. Here's a link if you haven't seen it. I say "some college Christian fundamentalist group" because there are a lot of them at Purdue.

I must be missing something here, but this is a problem why......?

"Wrong Sir, Gluons are a made-up dream. No one has seen them or even measured them...they don't exist. Its a desperate theory to explain away the truth"
Exactly.

People distribute all kinds of pamphlets in all kinds of places. Why should Purdue University be some kind of censorship zone?

[NewtonTrino]

Still in progress. Ever notice how every year there are more people and fewer monkeys?

. . . it was a joke, sheesh!

Oh man! Once we kill off all the monkeys creationists won't be able to use this tired old piece of bs.

[Chris Hegarty]

People distribute all kinds of pamphlets in all kinds of places. Why should Purdue University be some kind of censorship zone?

Hm. Censorship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28idiom%29)

I never said the University should censor them. I'm wondering why there are enough people to support this type of evolution denialism.

[little grey rabbit]

Well then why is it a problem?

Distributing a pamphlet is not a very good guide to public support, if anything it is the opposite, as it suggests a shut out or lack of receptivity through normal channels.

Which is odd really, because he is absolutely right about the Gluons.

[Fishstick]

Everyone knows gluons are a liberal conspiracy and the only thing keeping atoms together is jesus christ himself.

[drkitten]

So everyone who denies evolution is a nutcase?

Yes.

[drkitten]

Nutcase is a bad word; vague definition, and insulting to boot.

I stand by it. Everyone who denies evolution is irrational -- and I seen no reason to flatter irrational nutcases.

[NewtonTrino]

I stand by it. Everyone who denies evolution is irrational -- and I seen no reason to flatter irrational nutcases.

What if they're doing it so they can make a buck from selling books to idiots?

[drkitten]

What if they're doing it so they can make a buck from selling books to idiots?

Fair enough. They're all nutcases or charlatans (and in some cases both, e.g. Dembski).

[Sideroxylon]

I definitely agree that the Internet is a huge influence; I've read up a little on some websites, and they have an incredibly sophisticated game plan for how, where, and when they will attempt to hook people on creationism.

I can see how the Internet could benefit denialism through providing a tool to help these people coordinate, but I was wondering recently if it might also be working to spread better knowledge about evolution. I have noticed for a while that on general forums (games and music) that denialist and YEC ideas tend to get smacked down pretty soundly by facts. It has given me a bit of hope for the next generation.

[drkitten]

I can see how the Internet could benefit denialism through providing a tool to help these people coordinate, but I was wondering recently if it might also be working to spread better knowledge about evolution.

Only in the sense that it spreads better knowledge about everything -- but evolution was already extremely well-spread and so it benefits less.

In 1960, for example, there was already a well-established international network of scientists, with well-established channels for communicating with each other. They published journals, wrote books, attended conferences, and every major educational institution had copies of those journals and books available for the education of students.

The main difference between now and then is that now I can publish my theories much more quickly -- but not especially more widely.

The difference that the creationists experience between now and then is that now they can publish their theories much more widely.

[Last of the Fraggles]

However, some college Christian fundamentalist group has started spewing large numbers of Jack Chick pamphlets all over the place.

I don't know Purdue, but I'm surprised they get away with that. The few tracts I have seen were tantamount to hate speech in places.

As for the point of your post, there is a growing culture of every viewpoint being equally valid regardless of evidence or data, that old-fashioned science doesn't know everything (therefore any old junk theory might be true) and that its somehow better to eschew science in favour of spiritual stimulation.

Minority interests are also well-organised these days so a handful of nutjobs (and I'll be the one who is happy to say that most if not all evangelical Christian types fall into that category ;) ) can appear to be a growing trend.

[sadhatter]

I don't know Purdue, but I'm surprised they get away with that. The few tracts I have seen were tantamount to hate speech in places.

As for the point of your post, there is a growing culture of every viewpoint being equally valid regardless of evidence or data, that old-fashioned science doesn't know everything (therefore any old junk theory might be true) and that its somehow better to eschew science in favour of spiritual stimulation.

Minority interests are also well-organised these days so a handful of nutjobs (and I'll be the one who is happy to say that most if not all evangelical Christian types fall into that category ;) ) can appear to be a growing trend.

The line between fact and opinion blurring is not a good thing. And the fact that the majority of the people accept this, is scarier still.

It honestly seems like it is politically incorrect currently to tell someone they are simply wrong. And that is something that does not sit right with me, because regardless of if we all agree everyone is just as valid as everyone else, that dosn't make it true.

[Complexity]

Hold on, you think all evangelical christians are nutcases?


I certainly do. Every last one of them.

[Complexity]

So everyone who denies evolution is a nutcase?

Ignorant, mentally deficient, mentally ill, or a nutcase. Yes.

[Chris Hegarty]

It honestly seems like it is politically incorrect currently to tell someone they are simply wrong. And that is something that does not sit right with me, because regardless of if we all agree everyone is just as valid as everyone else, that doesn't make it true.

It's a problem that I don't see going away, either. If people point out that we have to call out denialists' ideas as unscientific and illegitimate, I'm sure there will be cries of religious persecution. It's a bit of a rock and a hard place.

[ponderingturtle]

It's the "kitten"

It got me too at first

I am not at all sure either way. I have never seen a clear statement from drKitten about his/her sex. The most I can say is the kitten and mentioning a husband in one thread lead me to think female, but drK seems to be unconcerned with what sex people think s/he is.

[LarianLeQuella]

Ignorant, mentally deficient, mentally ill, or a nutcase. Yes.


In my estimation, that's a kind assessment. :cool:

[Fnord]

Science is not 100% certain about anything, while Religion is certain about everything. Uncertainty shows lack of Faith, which faith is sufficient proof of any assertion ("God said it. I believe it. That settles it.") without ever having to understand the assertion itself ("God works in mysterious ways"). This is the mind-set of the religionist.

Yet time and again, Science has proven Religion wrong (or at least, very much in doubt).

I think the Religionists are striking back at what they perceive as threats to their identity -- they would rather be certain that they were created for a purpose in "God's Great Plan" than identify themselves as just one more set of organic chemicals resulting from 3.5 billion years of evolutionary accidents.

[NewtonTrino]

I think the Religionists are striking back at what they perceive as threats to their identity -- they would rather be certain that they were created for a purpose in "God's Great Plan" than identify themselves as just one more set of organic chemicals resulting from 3.5 billion years of evolutionary accidents.




I think that's giving them too much credit. The explanation is even simpler, they have been taken over by a meme.

[Fnord]

I think that's giving them too much credit. The explanation is even simpler, they have been taken over by a meme.
... or a Gua'uld...

[Robo Sapien]

Do any of you really find any of this suprising? Fundies are like the illuminati, they infiltrate everywhere, including the highest levels of government. Google for "Christian Mafia" or "The Family" and prepare for a dose of sickening reality that will have all the conspiracy nuts going "See, I told you so!"

[quixotecoyote]

Aren't the Illuminati supposed to be a small group that works in the highest secrecy that are actually mythical conspiracy nut fodder?

Rather the opposite of what's happening with Christianity.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hold on, you think all evangelical christians are nutcases?Pretty much. ;)

[dafydd]

So everyone who denies evolution is a nutcase?

Blind to the truth,yes.

[dafydd]

But if we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

DrKitten????? help!!!

We are not descended from monkeys,when will creationists ever get this right?

[drkitten]

We are not descended from monkeys,when will creationists ever get this right?

Er,.... actually, we are descended from monkeys.

If I persuaded Superman to take me back in time and help me bring back a few specimens of the most recent common ancestor between humans and spider monkeys, what do you think those specimens would look like?

If I were to donate those specimens to the National Zoo, where do you think they would be housed?

[Robo Sapien]

My answer to the "Why are there still monkeys?" argument:

Because God, like any wise creator, always keeps a backup of his original work so he can start over if he screws up the first time.

[Chris Hegarty]

My answer to the "Why are there still monkeys?" argument:

Because God, like any wise creator, always keeps a backup of his original work so he can start over if he screws up the first time.

He sure messed up the whole "make your own Vitamin C" thing with H. sapiens.

[AvalonXQ]

He sure messed up the whole "make your own Vitamin C" thing with H. sapiens.

Haven't you seen Jurassic Park? You have to build in a deficiency so they can't leave the island.

[John Jones]

If US citizens decended from people from other nations, why are there still other nations?

[Wudang]

If US citizens decended from people from other nations, why are there still other nations?

Please contact your local accredited NWO rep for a full timetable.

[Chris Hegarty]

Haven't you seen Jurassic Park? You have to build in a deficiency so they can't leave the island.

*facepalm*

I forgot. God obviously designed us with a vitamin C deficiency so we couldn't leave Earth! Everyone knows that orange trees can't grow in space without the proper Godly Sunlight.
:p

[Thunder]

But if we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

DrKitten????? help!!!

there are also still fish. there are also still birds. there are also still lots of plants and animals that have not changed much in millions of years.

so whats your point? that you don't understand evolution?

oh...I got it. :)

[Vortigern99]

Er,.... actually, we are descended from monkeys.

If I persuaded Superman to take me back in time and help me bring back a few specimens of the most recent common ancestor between humans and spider monkeys, what do you think those specimens would look like?

If I were to donate those specimens to the National Zoo, where do you think they would be housed?

Monkeys, apes and humans share common ancestors. It is not taxonomically correct to say "humans descended from monkeys", because when the line leading to modern apes and humans split from the line leading to modern Old World monkeys, ~25 mya, monkeys as we know them did not exist.

Aegyptopithecus, for example, tree-dwelling ancestor of all Old World monkeys, apes and humans, and which lived about ~30 mya, may "look like" a monkey to an untrained eye. But it lacked some characteristics that today define Old World monkeys, and possessed characteristics that today no monkey possesses. They were "monkey-like" animals, but physiologically and genetically they were not monkeys.

[drkitten]

Monkeys, apes and humans share common ancestors. It is not taxonomically correct to say "humans descended from monkeys", because when the line leading to modern apes and humans split from the line leading to modern Old World monkeys, ~25 mya, monkeys as we know them did not exist.

Yes, but that's not the same as saying "monkeys did not exist."


Aegyptopithecus, for example, tree-dwelling ancestor of all Old World monkeys, apes and humans, and which lived about ~30 mya, may "look like" a monkey to an untrained eye.

It would also look like a monkey to a trained eye. Because it was a monkey.

But it lacked some characteristics that today define Old World monkeys, and possessed characteristics that today no monkey possesses.

But nothing about "monkey" restricts its application to the currently extant species. We have no problem, for example, classifying the various mammoths and mastodons as "pachyderms" despite the fact that a) they don't exist today, and b) they have characteristics that are not found in any living pachyderm.

[NewtonTrino]

Hold on, are you people claiming that people are monkeys?

When was the last time a monkey drove car? Monkeys aren't people and people aren't monkeys. Although I bet you could fit a lot of monkeys into a clown car.

[drkitten]

Hold on, are you people claiming that people are monkeys?

And NewtonTrino once again demonstrates what happens when you skip reading class too often.

[Vortigern99]

Yes, but that's not the same as saying "monkeys did not exist."

Monkey-like animals existed. Monkeys did not.

It would also look like a monkey to a trained eye. Because it was a monkey.

No it wasn't.

But nothing about "monkey" restricts its application to the currently extant species. We have no problem, for example, classifying the various mammoths and mastodons as "pachyderms" despite the fact that a) they don't exist today, and b) they have characteristics that are not found in any living pachyderm.

Fair points, I suppose, but I'm only passing on what I was taught by Prof. David Glassman in pursuit of a minor in anthropology. If there is some academic debate about correct terminology of which I was heretofore unaware, I'll position myself with the "ancient animals such as Aegyptopithecus were monkey-like, not monkeys" crowd, while you clearly side with the "no, they were monkeys" crowd. Science is fun!

[drkitten]

Fair points, I suppose, but I'm only passing on what I was taught by Prof. David Glassman in pursuit of a minor in anthropology. If there is some academic debate about correct terminology of which I was heretofore unaware, I'll position myself with the "ancient animals such as Aegyptopithecus were monkey-like, not monkeys" crowd, while you clearly side with the "no, they were monkeys" crowd. Science is fun!

Well, was Aegyptopithecus only "mammal-like," or was it an actual mammal?

[Vortigern99]

I see where you're going, but "mammal-ism" contains a much broader set of characteristics than "monkey-ism". Mammals are warm-blooded, fur-bearing, milk-producing, live-birthing cordata. From its fossil remains, we can either see or reasonably conclude that Aegyptopithicus zeuxis had all of these features; ergo it was a mammal.

Yet Aegyptopithicus, as a basal catarrhine that existed prior to the divergence of Old World monkeys and apes, possessed prosimian featues (tiny brain-to-body ratio), monkey features (arboreal leaping and clinging, "anthropoid" quadrupedalism), as well as ape features (robust bones, "large and slow" in terms of mass and speed).

So which was it? Is it accurate to say it was both monkey and ape? If so, what is the purpose of making a denotational distinction between the two terms, monkey and ape? Further, what about the prosimian features? Are we to call it a "prosimonkapey" in order to fairly and factually represent all its diverse and shared characteristics? The purpose of taxonomic classification in grouping like animals with like begins to break down at this point.

Ultimately it is more accurate and more meaningful to say Aegyptopithecus was neither monkey nor ape, and was simply a "monkey-like" or simiiform ancestor to parvorder Catarrhini.

[NewtonTrino]

See this is what I'm saying. We couldn't have descended from monkeys because there were no monkeys! Only clowns!

[Vortigern99]

Bozopithecus?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Teh Interwebz.

The same societal movement that has caused other groups to believe that it's perfectly okay to make death threats against US senators or to shoot abortionists in the middle of a church service.

A long, long time ago (I can still remember how that music used to make me,... sorry, I drifted off there) you got most of your information from the same sources that your neighbors did. We all read the Daily Bugle and watched Channel 1 News, and if I wanted to know whether Bigfoot had been instrumental in getting the UFOs to fake evidence of the Holocaust, I'd probably ask my neighbor and he would tell me I was bonkers.

If I wanted to know what D&D was like, I had to wait for someone to hand me a copy of Chick's Dark Dungeons tract.

Today I know that my neighbor is part of the anti-Bigfoot conspiracy sheepie because Google told me so, and I can download all the Chick tracts I like in the privacy of my own parents' basement.


I absolutely agree the internet is responsible for rise in modern day woo...from creationism to anti vaccines. People tend to think if something's written down, it's true. So you'll have websites with absolutely no references, no facts, no actual data, and people will treat them as if they're reading a peer reviewed scientific journal.

It also allows people to get together, and encourage eachother's woo, and provide eachother "evidence" to back it up (even when a rational person would say, wait, Kirk Cameron holding a banana is not proof of creationism).

I can't even count the number of times I've seen a woo stating "google *whatever the subject at hand* and you'll find all the evidence you need." They seem to think that the fact that many websites exist which support their viewpoint make it right.

I asked my mom a little while ago how it was possible for the anti vaxx movement to be as big as it is, and she said, "People who spend too much time on the internet who don't know how to put information into context." I thought that summed it up nicely.

[Paradox74]

Aren't the Illuminati supposed to be a small group that works in the highest secrecy that are actually mythical conspiracy nut fodder?

Rather the opposite of what's happening with Christianity.


I thought that the Illuminati are a bunch of shapeshifting reptiles who are controlling us inside of a computer simulation with us.

[FramerDave]

It's a problem that I don't see going away, either. If people point out that we have to call out denialists' ideas as unscientific and illegitimate, I'm sure there will be cries of religious persecution. It's a bit of a rock and a hard place.

They're trying to have it both ways. They argue that science is amoral (or immoral) and does not have all the answers, yet try to argue their religious viewpoints with science. If an opponent attacks their science, then they get to play the persecution card.

Quite crafty.

[fuelair]

So everyone who denies evolution is a nutcase?

Or a fool, or an incompetant, or ignorant (by accident or on purpose), or brainwashed, or a liar (for whatever purpose - often political). So many possiblities. Actually, nutcase is the least likely so, perhaps, I should have said "Instead, possibly a fool, or.........". A nutcase would likely be unconcerned with evolution pro or con.:)

[Nursedan]

Er,.... actually, we are descended from monkeys.

If I persuaded Superman to take me back in time and help me bring back a few specimens of the most recent common ancestor between humans and spider monkeys, what do you think those specimens would look like?

If I were to donate those specimens to the National Zoo, where do you think they would be housed?

It's not that we are descended from monkeys, but that we share a common ancestor with them. Just like we share a common ancestor with the first forms of life and every other form of life. Read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins to better understand this.

The way he explains it, life forms can be imagined on a 'evolutionary ladder', and life forms that we know of today all diverged from the path at a cetain point and developed on their own. I'm paraphrasing of course.

[drkitten]

It's not that we are descended from monkeys, but that we share a common ancestor with them.

And just what do you think our (most recent) common ancestor with a monkey looked like?

Did it look like a parrot? With feathers and a beak?

Did it look like a whale? With flukes and a blowhole?

Did it look like a turtle? With a shell?

Or did it look like a monkey, with hand-like paws and binocular vision?

Read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins to better understand this.

Read it, and I submit I understand it better than you.

[Wowbagger]

We are not descended from contemporary monkeys.

We share a common ancestor with today's monkeys, but that ancestor was, technically, neither a human nor a modern monkey. It was an earlier form of primate.

It was probably more monkey-like, than human-like, perhaps. But, technically, I think Nursedan's view is more accurate than drkitten's, in this case.

Monkeys have also undergone evolution, since the population split and diverged from that earlier form.

[Roboramma]

We are not descended from contemporary monkeys.

We share a common ancestor with today's monkeys, but that ancestor was, technically, neither a human nor a modern monkey. It was an earlier form of primate.

It was probably more monkey-like, than human-like, perhaps. But, technically, I think Nursedan's view is more accurate than drkitten's, in this case.

Well, considering that it is part of a clade that includes all modern monkeys and no non-monkeys (except apes which, considering all apes are more closely related to old-world monkeys than new-world monkeys, any group that includes all monkeys will necessarily include all apes) I'm happy to call it a monkey.

I can't see any reason to call it something else.

But here's a question for those who don't consider out most recent common ancestor with monkeys to have been a monkey: was our most recent common ancestor with old-world monkeys are monkey?

[shadron]

It's not that we are descended from monkeys, but that we share a common ancestor with them. Just like we share a common ancestor with the first forms of life and every other form of life. Read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins to better understand this.

The way he explains it, life forms can be imagined on a 'evolutionary ladder', and life forms that we know of today all diverged from the path at a cetain point and developed on their own. I'm paraphrasing of course.

It's more a semantics argument than a biological one. The lowest clade in which we (man) and they (old world monkeys) share a common ancester is Catarrhines (which means simple-nosed). One step above that we all merge with the new world monkeys (Platyrrhines, flat-nosed) in the clade Simiformes (monkey-shaped). So, if a basal Simiform or a Catarrhine can be call a monkey, then we shared a monkey for an ancestor, but note that he will be neither an old or new world monkey.

In general, the English equivalent animal words are usually paraphyletic (not all descendants of such have share the name, such as "dinosaur" doesn't usually include birds). "Monkey" is paraphyletic, normally, as it doesn't include man. Biological systematics doesn't strictly allow for this; all clade names must be monophyletic (the name covers all descendants). So, we're all simiformes, and all catarrhines. Does that make us all monkeys? Semantics.

Same goes for being apes, as well. If a basal Hominidae (commonly, a hominid, though the use is debatable) is an ape, then we are all apes. One step further up is the clade Hominoidea, which also include Gibbons; same goes for that clade. All us people are Homo, Hominini (or homonin or hominin), Homininae, Hominidae, Hominoidea (and that is not the same as humanoid), Catarrhinea, Simiformes, Haplorrhini (dry-nosed!), and primates, and about 30 other named clades all the way to Eutheria. Above that it is no longer a tree, but rather a free-for-all of life.

[Wowbagger]

Well, considering that it is part of a clade that includes all modern monkeys and no non-monkeys (except apes which, considering all apes are more closely related to old-world monkeys than new-world monkeys, any group that includes all monkeys will necessarily include all apes) I'm happy to call it a monkey.

I can't see any reason to call it something else.Fine. But, that's just a semantic/taxonomic argument.

When addressing such questions as: "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", it is more important to communicate the common ancestry factor, than the "what we call it" factor.

The general concepts of evolution mean more to me, than what the specifics of the terms mean, in general.

But here's a question for those who don't consider out most recent common ancestor with monkeys to have been a monkey: was our most recent common ancestor with old-world monkeys are monkey?I'll let others fight over taxonomic designations.

[tensordyne]

:boxedin: You guys ever hear of ring species? They are a great in-your-face-your-are-wrong to Christian Scientist types (or is that a whole other can of worms...). A ring species is a set of species that are geographically separated to such an extent that at one end members can not mate with those on the other end. A given species can mate with neighboring "species" so that genetic information forms a kind of ring even if the mating pattern does not.

I read about it in one of Dawkins' books. It is a wonderful example of evolution because it is the analog of evolution in time, this time over space. Remember also that the platform of old school Christian religion is that God created all species once and they should never change. The species are supposed to be of a specific kind and immutable. Ring species fly right in the face of this idea.

[Roboramma]

Fine. But, that's just a semantic/taxonomic argument.

When addressing such questions as: "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", it is more important to communicate the common ancestry factor, than the "what we call it" factor.

The general concepts of evolution mean more to me, than what the specifics of the terms mean, in general. I find the general concepts more interesting and meaningful as well, but I also consider it to be very misleading to reply "we didn't descend from monkeys" and leave it at that.

Because the people that you're talking to very likely would consider our most recent common ancestor with monkeys to have been a monkey if they saw it, and they have reasonable justification for doing so.

To point out the error of the argument doesn't require saying "it wasn't a monkey". It's not only easy to show that the argument is false, but also in doing so to illuminate some of those "general concepts of evolution".

Moreover, it's certainly possible for a modern organism to be descended from an animal that was virtually identical to another, now still existent, modern organism, without contradicting anything about evolutionary theory. That fact that it doesn't usually work that way is interesting, but not particularly important in regards to why the "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" question.

I'll let others fight over taxonomic designations.
Okay, fair enough.

PS to Shadron, nice post, I think you said everything that needed to be said on this issue. :)

[AvalonXQ]

Remember also that the platform of old school Christian religion is that God created all species once and they should never change. The species are supposed to be of a specific kind and immutable. Ring species fly right in the face of this idea.

Most Creationism proponents acknowledge that natural selection today causes variations in "kinds", so the existence of these variations doesn't bother them at all.

[Cainkane1]

And just what do you think our (most recent) common ancestor with a monkey looked like?

Did it look like a parrot? With feathers and a beak?

Did it look like a whale? With flukes and a blowhole?

Did it look like a turtle? With a shell?

Or did it look like a monkey, with hand-like paws and binocular vision?



Read it, and I submit I understand it better than you.
Well Kitten I've read genesis and "The Greatest Show on earth" makes much more sense.

[Wowbagger]

I find the general concepts more interesting and meaningful as well, but I also consider it to be very misleading to reply "we didn't descend from monkeys" and leave it at that.But, I wouldn't leave it at that!

The key word is "contemporary", or alternatively, "modern". Stick words like that in front of "monkey", perhaps elaborate as I have, when needed, and most of your fears are addressed.

[tensordyne]

:boxedin:Most Creationism proponents acknowledge that natural selection today causes variations in "kinds", so the existence of these variations doesn't bother them at all.

Fair enough, but the "kinds" of species called races in previous years should always be able to interbreed. One example of a ring species is the Larus gulls that exist around the North Pole. Here http : // en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Ring_species is an article on the topic (this freaking forum does not let me post links or have an avatar or signature, who designed this Draconian fraking forum). The gulls starting in Great Britain can hybridize with their American cousins but by the time you reach all the way back to Norway the Great Britain Larus gulls can not interbreed. This should not happen according to old school Christian mythology.

[hokie]

When I was in college there were creationists handing out these comic books showing how zebras ran up the 'hills' of the Grand Canyon and were faster than clams so they ended up in sediments near the top. How stupid was that? Well I received that from a friend of mine. Read it and tossed it in disbelief. I already knew of many cases that refuted the claims in that comic book while I was an undergraduate. The best part of the comic book was the claim that the flood came from the sky and the water up there kept out UV rays and led to the long lifetimes of the early peoples of the bible. When I told my friend, the certified nutcase, that putting water in the air increased the air pressure he told me no. I said that if water to fill the land with 30000 feet of water to cover the highest peaks were suspended over your head you would be feeling that weight as pressure he said no. I went back to my dorm room. Dead end conversation there.

So yeah. You have to be a nutcase to deny evolution. The upshot of that denial means also denying all of science.

[tensordyne]

:boxedin:When I was in college there were creationists handing out these comic books showing how zebras ran up the 'hills' of the Grand Canyon and were faster than clams so they ended up in sediments near the top. How stupid was that? Well I received that from a friend of mine. Read it and tossed it in disbelief. I already knew of many cases that refuted the claims in that comic book while I was an undergraduate. The best part of the comic book was the claim that the flood came from the sky and the water up there kept out UV rays and led to the long lifetimes of the early peoples of the bible. When I told my friend, the certified nutcase, that putting water in the air increased the air pressure he told me no. I said that if water to fill the land with 30000 feet of water to cover the highest peaks were suspended over your head you would be feeling that weight as pressure he said no. I went back to my dorm room. Dead end conversation there.

So yeah. You have to be a nutcase to deny evolution. The upshot of that denial means also denying all of science.

I of course agree with everything written above except that Creationists necessarily deny all of science. As a logical necessity I would say most people, even some scientists, are not aware of how science should work in the best case scenario.

It is just that Creationists compartmentalize things. They will agree that some science is real, such as aerodynamics when they go on an airplane but think that the science that keeps them aloft in the air, is somehow different from the science that shows how species evolve over time. In that sense they are more hypocrites then they are deniers, because half the time they do not even know what they are denying. Ask your friend, if you are still in contact, what does the Theory of Evolution say and I bet you will get back something that is not evolution theory. How can Creationists deny Evolution when most of them do not even know what it means?

[Belz...]

Hold on, are you people claiming that people are monkeys?

Apes, actually.

When was the last time a monkey drove car?

"Computers aren't calculators. When was the last time a calculator beat Gary Kasparov ?" :rolleyes:

[hokie]

You see tensordyne all aspects of science get hit because they have to say that anything that conflicts with their interpretation of the bible must be wrong.
Nuclear physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, archaeology, quantum mechanisms, and so forth are wrong in many ways because of issues of dating, no flood evidence, no exodus evidence, etc. So much of science was described to me as inexact and that one day the theories of today will be completely replaced by new science and that by new science until theories are in agreement with the bible. That was what they tried to tell me.

It was the offer for personalized prayer sessions in my dorm room that split me and my friend up. Getting a giggle out of a comic book showing zebras running out of the Grand Canyon is one thing, but the rest was over the top for me.

[ParrotPirate]

So everyone who denies evolution is a nutcase?

Pretty much. Anybody who ignores and denies HUGE mountains of evidence would be a nutcase in my book.