The most common seems to be the myth/meme of "Directional" evolution. It's kind of quasi-religious, and I think it's something we're kind of hard-wired to 'get', even though it's dead wrong. Of course, all those "Ape to man" t-shirts don't help...people who don't really bother to study at all wind up with this idea of evolution.
The second huge misconception I've seen more among the extremely religious: people who think that evolution = individual organisms adapting, rather than populations. I honestly thought that was so silly I never realized that some people honestly misconstrue the theory that way until I started encountering the writing of ID-ers. It seems too Pratchet-esque (keep dropping the turtle, eventually one will fly!).
By the way, I've now read farther down the comments, and while I still think they guy's argument was silly, there is informed discussion going on, and he does (later) get that evolution = traits becoming more/less dominant in a population, not individuals adapting.
no subject
The most common seems to be the myth/meme of "Directional" evolution. It's kind of quasi-religious, and I think it's something we're kind of hard-wired to 'get', even though it's dead wrong. Of course, all those "Ape to man" t-shirts don't help...people who don't really bother to study at all wind up with this idea of evolution.
The second huge misconception I've seen more among the extremely religious: people who think that evolution = individual organisms adapting, rather than populations. I honestly thought that was so silly I never realized that some people honestly misconstrue the theory that way until I started encountering the writing of ID-ers. It seems too Pratchet-esque (keep dropping the turtle, eventually one will fly!).
By the way, I've now read farther down the comments, and while I still think they guy's argument was silly, there is informed discussion going on, and he does (later) get that evolution = traits becoming more/less dominant in a population, not individuals adapting.