Why do people reject evolution?

Ieyke

New member
Jul 24, 2008
1,402
0
0
People are stupid, and people don't know what a science means by "theory".

They think "The Theory Of Evolution" is just a guess that they haven't proven, because that's what "theory" typically means in most contexts.
A theory, in the science context, is THE MOST SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE FORM OF ALL KNOWLEDGE.
If there is a scientific theory of something, then it is one of the most reliable, scrutinized, and rigorously and empirically proven pieces of information we have regarding anything ever.
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
AwesomeWunderbar said:
Doug said:
AwesomeWunderbar said:
disgruntledgamer said:
One of the strongest scientific theories to date, even stronger than the theory of Gravity
Gravity isn't a theory, it's a law.
If you volatile it, the reality police drag you off to...somewhere. We think its hiding behind the Higgs-Boson. Hence, the search for it. If we destroy the prison, gravity need no longer bind us!
But that wouldn't be good! Cause then we'd float out into space and our heads would explode!
You can't make an anti-gravity device without causing a few apocalypses.

tsb247 said:
As a Christian, I firmly believe that evolution (science) has its place to be taught in school, and creation (religion) has its place to be taught in churches. It's really not all that hard. You don't go to school to be indoctrinated; you go to school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic (+ science).

As for what I believe... I believe the Bible gives us an oversimplified explanation of where we come from. How would you explain biological science to a person 2000 years ago that didn't even have a concept of cellular biology, let alone genetics? Yeah... I believe in the Bible, but I don't believe it is meant to be taken literally. It says God made man, but it never said how.

That's my two cents anyway...

EDIT: Do I believe in evolution? Yes.
Indeedie - I think the problem is that there are some people at the top of the extreme churches that believe the bible 'literally true', i.e. the earth and universe were made in 6 days flat, and they know evolution posses a direct threat to the authority they and their churches have over the 'flock'.

Even the last pope agreed with evolution (sadly the new one has changed that opinion), and the smarted churches try and move with the times (ok, the church of England didn't quite manage to get women bishops but the 2/3 of the voting rounds passed, which indicates to me there only a matter of time). In short, you are a very sane person, and I feel sorry your religious believes associate you with such idiots who demand the bible be taught literally in schools in America.

Evolution is as undeniable as gravity in terms of the evidence; and if the current theory of evolution is 'wrong', it'll be wrong in the same way as Newton's original theory of gravity - inaccurate but still a great approximation for every day use.

Oh well, over here in Brit-land, we seem to not have so much creationist BS. Although apparently it is on the rise :sad-face:
 

Ryotknife

New member
Oct 15, 2011
1,687
0
0
Doug said:
Evolution is as undeniable as gravity in terms of the evidence; and if the current theory of evolution is 'wrong', it'll be wrong in the same way as Newton's original theory of gravity - inaccurate but still a great approximation for every day use.
You can see the effects of gravity, you can perform experiments to show how gravity works. You can not do this with evolution. In fact for the average person you pretty much have to accept it on blind faith because a book told you so, which is not so much different from doing what the Bible says. In some ways evolution is like theoritical physics. A lot of thought and knowledge behind them, but nothing that is tangible or can be shown. Science is USUALLY tangible, either directly or indirectly.

Now, it does weird me out that there are a lot of people who take the bible literally instead of a book of stories to each us moral lessons and whatnot.
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
Ryotknife said:
Doug said:
Evolution is as undeniable as gravity in terms of the evidence; and if the current theory of evolution is 'wrong', it'll be wrong in the same way as Newton's original theory of gravity - inaccurate but still a great approximation for every day use.
You can see the effects of gravity, you can perform experiments to show how gravity works. You can not do this with evolution. In fact for the average person you pretty much have to accept it on blind faith because a book told you so, which is not so much different from doing what the Bible says. In some ways evolution is like theoritical physics. A lot of thought and knowledge behind them, but nothing that is tangible or can be shown. Science is USUALLY tangible, either directly or indirectly.
I can see how evolution works, both in simulations and real life - how do you think virus' and bacteria are becoming resistant to anti-bodies? Evolution in response to a more hostile environment for them. Add to that the fossil record as a bigger-scale record of evolution.

I even did a simulation experiment once with 'genetic algorithms'; of course, they are MASSIVELY simpler than genetic structures stored in the typical creature, and it was 'unnatural selection', but still, it was interesting to see changes as the 'species' evolved, and the throw-backs as old 'genetic information' was switched back on.

I personally can not prove the whole of evolution; the time, effort, and cost required is beyond me. Frankly, I trust a huge group of sciences who actually look at the world and try to describe it than the bible, written thousands of years ago by desert people who simply couldn't have seen the world in the detail we do now, nor with the amount of evidence and knowledge we have at our fingertips.

I'll grant you, gravity is quicker and easier to demonstrate, but equally I can point to actual unresolved issues with it (i.e. does dark-matter actually exist? does dark-energy? why is it so weak? what actually causes it?...), but like good sciences, they are looking into those problems as well.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
wulf3n said:
Have we actually seen the change though?
Maybe not with mudskippers, but we've seen changes in laboratory environments, and Darwin saw it within his own lifetime.

You're free to not "fully believe" it all you want, but it's on par with not believing other observable phenomena. Do you not fully believe in fire or gravity?
I think you're confusing natural selection with evolution.

Zachary Amaranth said:
But sometimes the arguments put forward by believers aren't as fool proof as they would like to believe.
You can always find someone to say something stupid about just about anything. That should in no way degrade the notion itself.

However, I cannot make you believe in it any further than I can make the Insane Clown Posse understand how magnets work.
you missed the point. When someone raises an argument for something you believe in, you're less likely to give it the proper critical analysis, so what can seem like irrefutable proof to you, is just more of the same to others.

Besides, since when is not believing in something because you have questions about it a bad thing?

disgruntledgamer said:
wulf3n said:
disgruntledgamer said:
One of the strongest scientific theories to date, even stronger than the theory of Gravity and there are still people out there that reject it.
One is an observable phenomena the other isn't.

You can show all the facts, papers, journals, text books, and fossils you want, but until a significant alteration to an organisms genetic code is observed propagating across it's species, a lot of people just won't buy in.
Oh for the last time we already have! We've observed both Micro and Macro evolution in the laboratory, in fact I've done this personally.

Seriously I feel like a broken record here, I keep saying it and giving examples and links and they keep asking.
I like how simply asking for evidence is enough for people to think I believe in creationism.

It's surpising how much the thesis thumping scientists and the bible thumping creationists have in common.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
Trippy Turtle said:
Honestly I am more surprised so many people do believe it. Sure, it has heaps of evidence. How many average people actually understand that evidence? I am interested in the topic and I don't know enough about it to put up a convincing argument for it.
Sure I could go on about fossils, but other then that I can't prove shit.

I do believe in it though.
Well you don't have to be biologist to know how evolution works.

Genetics, while being complex when you get into the nitty-gritty, is probably one of the easiest and most understandable pieces of evidence of evolution.

Pathogens are the most prevalent. If they didn't evolve counter-measures to our counter-measures (the immune-system) they wouldn't survive.

Then of cause there's the fact that you don't look 100% like your parents. Nor will your kids look 100% like you. Features are inherited over the generations and mutations can add new features (you may want to check out Lenski's E. Coli Long-term Evolution experiment which showed that E. Coli evolved the ability to to digest citrate).
 

fractal_butterfly

New member
Sep 4, 2010
160
0
0
How to create a hot 10 page thread:

Step 1: Choose a typical troll topic.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit

OT: Despite my first few lines I can't resist to bite the bait. ;-)
I am baffled by the statement, that evolution is as founded or even more founded than gravity. First of all: I don't believe in evolution, I KNOW that there is hard evidence for many evolutionary machanisms. You don't believe in that, that's a scientifically proven fact. Why I still reject parts of the evolution theory? Well, because it is not that well founded, like the OP suggests.
Of course you have mechanisms like modification, which explain a large range of things like making a white moth black, having different people with different skin colors and several subspecies of dogs, all of which originate in Canis Lupus, the common wolf. If you look at the difference between a Chihuahua, a Great Dane and said wolf, this is amazing enough. But lets go a little bit deeper and look at the bigger picture.
Modification is, unlike mutation, a mechanism that recombines existing genetic material. There are mechanisms for modification going on in the process of the merging of sperm and ovum. But the effects you get from this are in the range of going from a dog to a wolf and vica verca. Which means, no genetic material is added and no material is removed. Thats just not how breeding works (Mendel could tell you some things about that).
Going from a smalll woodland creature with stumpy legs and a round body, to a majestic galopping creature of the steppes (Hyracotherium to the modern horse), is a completely different story.
This is one of my favorite examples, so here a little excursion. There are many fossils between Hyracotherium and our modern horse. But even in this well documented example, we still have a load of gaps. Most of the intermediate states of the horse's evolution are still missing. I know, that is no proof against it, but it is also not "a stronger theory than gravity".
As soon as the resulting genetic material differs from the original, we have a mutation. We all know mutations, like sickle cell anemia or cancer. If a mutation happens, anything can result. It could be a slightly thicker skin, he ability to hold your breath a little longer, a sickening disease which shortens you life or even rightout death on arrival. (we are not talking about additional or missing limbs, which are most of the time not mutations but disturbances in the embryonic developoment)
There are several problems with this. First of all, the genetic code, like any codification, allows only a certain number of meaningful combinations. With most of the mutations, the result is either unnoticable, which has no "advantage" in an evolutionary sense, or the resulting creature will be in a worse condition than its ancestors or rightout nonviable. There are several mechanisms in the DNA of any living creature on this planet (I DON'T want to argue, if viruses are living creatures or not, that is a completely different topic), which PREVENT mutations from happening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair). They are constantly repairing errors in the DNA and therefore prevent mutations.
Like this, mutations are very unlikely as such. As stated before, "good" (i.e. meaningful mutations, that are not ignored and do not righout kill the resulting creature) are also very unlikely. At this point, there is the argument with the tornado on the junkyard. If you have a tornado running over a junkyard, you will get a big mess. But there is a small possibility, that it will result in something meaningful, like a fully functioning car. So if you have a really big amount of tornados running over the junkyard (we are talking about billions or trillions, given the amount of time earth exists), one of them will eventually produce said car. The problem is, that then comes the next tornado and destroys the damn thing... What I want to say is: yes, there is a possibility for "good" mutations, but there is an even greater possibility for mutations, that destroy the whole thing again. So even given the amount of time we have, the possibility is running against zero to have not only advanced organisms, but also the variety of species we have today.
It is in this case a simple matter of information theory and math. We don't even have to go as far as looking as the chemistry of large molecules, amino acids in particular, to support my point.
I will not start a debate about the spontaneous ermegence of life, since this thread only discusses evolution, but this would also an interesting topic to further develop my thesis.

TL;DR:
What I want to say is, that you have to be careful, what you call a "fact". You have to check everything you are given as a fact today, because there are to many people trying to enforce their own agenda.
I don't want you to run into the curches, I want you to run to your books (or even wikipedia might be a good start). Check your facts, check the people that are giving them to you and start thinking for yourselves. Please please please, for the sake of humanity...
 

Mazza35

New member
Jan 20, 2011
302
0
0
Aglynugga said:
Quaxar said:
JoJo said:
Aglynugga said:
My ancestors weren't monkeys ok, is that what you want to teach your kids? Bring your child to the zoo and bring them to the chimps and points to them then say' Look its your gradparents wave hello and give them a kiss."? No! That is not right we come from the bible like God says Adam and Eve not Davey and Steve and there was a snake.
So I say to you look in your heart and see that God made you and he made you very special and you are not made from monkeys.
You are a brave man my friend.
He's not brave but simply a troll, you can look at his posting record for that. Also, damn you other biology students for replying before I had a chance to type out my text. I'm having a big exam coming up with that being one of the major parts.

Let me at least say that what religion someone has doesn't necessarily matter. I personally don't really care if you're Christian, Buddhist, Atheist or part of that Shiva cult from Indiana Jones if you're willing to listen to explanations instead of dismissing it all because an old book or a mystic stone stolen from an Indian village tells you so. If the pope can agree with science then there is every possibility of accepting it yourself.
And please never listen to anything said by anyone who calls himself a "creation scientist". If you have ever seen a single Kent Hovind video and actually knew the topic he rambled about you'd understand why. For example he has his own little "theory of evolution(s)" where he also likes to throw in things like "stellar evolution"the formation of stars and planets, "chemical evolution"meaning, the evolution of hydrogen into higher elements or "cosmic evolution"apparently the evolution of time & space.
I could go further and talk a lot about this idiocracy but I think and hope we can all agree on this.

No man you listen to this because it is in the bible. You can't say oh no this man is religious I will call him a troll and then he will not be listened to so people will not hear about god. But if i am a troll i am a troll for God because I will not let you try to make people think that they are monkeys or came from the sea like mermaids. You don't understand because you are probably an atheist and never read the bible anyways you proabaly read the koran like some terrorists do. But you know what even though you are against god and would let people worship satan and things I know you have to love and tolerate me because your satan pony makes you.
People U need to love God and let him into your heart. He is your maker not crazy monkeys or satan.

These kind of people make me hate religion.
'You don't believe in my religion, I'll try to debunk your facts with silly accusations relating nothing to anything.'

I can't think of anything else...my logic is just violated....

Can I shoot him now?
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,526
0
0
This thread is still going?



I hope you're proud of yourselves.

OT: Like someone has already said, a theory in science is about as close to 100% proving something as you can get.

Evolution is observed in bacteria, in viruses, fossil records etc.

Gravity is 'only a theory' too, but I don't see people jumping out of windows ¬_¬
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Essentially, people who say this aren't open-minded enough to consider the notion that...if there is a god, then he {A} is capable of science on a level that Arthur C. Clarke predicted (indistinguishable from magic) and thus handled universal creation and evolution and not just simply pop-magic. The bible is what you would call an explanation for being from one higher to one who would be struggling like hell for understanding because he's not nearly as bright. Ergo, a myth to explain what was incapable of being understood. There's probably some truth to account for ALL myths out there somewhere. This all comes out of SOMETHING. It's just that some of them are just stories and others are the basis for a religion. But you have people who are, let's face it, kind of jerky that won't open up to new concepts.
 

Quaxar

New member
Sep 21, 2009
3,949
0
0
Spearmaster said:
Quaxar said:
Spearmaster said:
Anyone who has done more in depth studying may be able to answer a question for me though. Are apes our only living relative or just our closest? I'm just curious when apes shared a common ancestor with a fish or a dolphin, if the current model is as flawless as some say it is it should work the same all the way back to the origin of all life. Or does it only provide a link a link between man and ape? Which is just a sliver of our evolutionary history.
EVERYTHING is a living relative if you want to get technical. But they certainly are closest in terms of evolutionary nearest. Let me illustrate that with the classic tree of life.
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/primate_family_tree.gif
I like that one. It's colourful.
It's only the primate order but you can more or less go back to bigger and bigger graphs if you want broader ancestry. Keep in mind though that you might find different illustrations in parts because some people tend to put classifications together differently.
I don't think that quite addresses the question I had. I have seen more precise charts on evolution but nothing as accurate as the man/ape model that provides a model for all species just that of a link between man and ape and/or other primates. If the current model of evolution is so accurate then it should be able to be applied to all forms of life that possess DNA. If not then we may only be dealing with 1% or less of the whole picture of evolution on this planet.
It is quite a stretch to base a claim that the current evolutionary model is 100% correct on perhaps less than 1% of of the evidence of evolution. I do appreciate the reply though, I may be digger for a bigger answer than the world can provide at this point.
To address the OP sometimes it seems that most evolutionary theory is used, not by the researchers but mainly by individuals to disprove creationism more than actually provide a clear picture of the origin of life on this planet. I think that may be why so many hardline creationists try to find ways to deny or discount evolutionary theory. Maybe we need to step away from the "see you are wrong" attitude and try "look what we found, what do you think?" for a change. Also I don't see the harm in people believing in creation if it makes them happy.
Apparently I misunderstood you, sorry then.

So you are looking for evolutionary charts on all animals that are as precise as the hominid ones? That might not be easy to find simply for the fact that there is a seperate branch of biology, anthropology, that only focuses on humans and then there's a "rest" who more or less have to do the other evolutionary charts on the whole animal kingdom. And generally speaking human evolution has always been more favoured and funded for obvious reasons.
But on the other hand we do have the field of genetics where we don't need any fossils and can simply compare the DNA codes to a degree that we can find certain grades of relation in all living beings. Even if we didn't have a single fossil genetics would be enough to perfectly support the theory of evolution.

wulf3n said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
wulf3n said:
Have we actually seen the change though?
Maybe not with mudskippers, but we've seen changes in laboratory environments, and Darwin saw it within his own lifetime.

You're free to not "fully believe" it all you want, but it's on par with not believing other observable phenomena. Do you not fully believe in fire or gravity?
I think you're confusing natural selection with evolution.
I think you are confusing how evolution works. Natural selection is an essential part of change over time.
And anyway, we have also observed changes not accounted for in the original genetic code.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
wulf3n said:
I think you're confusing natural selection with evolution.
I think you're trying to dodge obvious evidence simply because it's inconvenient.

you missed the point. When someone raises an argument for something you believe in, you're less likely to give it the proper critical analysis, so what can seem like irrefutable proof to you, is just more of the same to others.
Speak for yourself, John.

Besides, since when is not believing in something because you have questions about it a bad thing?
Strawman.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Evolution is observed in bacteria, in viruses, fossil records etc.
Don't forget Pokémon!

...What? That's pretty much what anti-evolutionists seem to think Darwin believed...
 

Nimzabaat

New member
Feb 1, 2010
886
0
0
Dijkstra said:
Nimzabaat said:
Dijkstra said:
Nimzabaat said:
Yet in this very thread, people who challenge science are being accused of stupidity, narrow-mindedness etc.
It could be because, you know, the form of the challenge suggests as much.
I agree! It seems to be the weapon of choice for both sides :)
If by both sides you mean 'Creationists' and 'Creationists' instead of some silly attempt to equate science with pseudoscience.
Ah, the "I know you are but what am I?" defense. I haven't heard that one since elementary school. It is an excellent example of what we were discussing though.

You guys (everybody) should check out Neil Degrasse Tyson on youtube. He's smart enough to enlighten on many points without having to be dumb enough to say he's absolutely certain about things.
 

fwiffo

New member
Sep 12, 2011
113
0
0
Sorry I'm late to the thread but somebody already mentioned eyes right? I thought eyes were one thing evolution had trouble explaining.

btw I believe in evolution, just don't hear people mention eyes very often.
 

UsefulPlayer 1

New member
Feb 22, 2008
1,776
0
0
I always thought evolution was about diversity and those that were most suited for the environment would survive, procreate, and those advance traits would live on.

So that every single quirky thing about anybody, like those who have bomb shelters or arsenals of weapons, might help them survive in some weird apocalyptic situation. And then it would be us, the masses, who would all die and those quirky stuff was indeed the right instincts and so we should be thankful for such diversity because it meant humanity survived.

Maybe that's off on some other idea.

But! You should really be thinking if you were put in their shoes and had the life that they had instead of the one you had now.....would you think any differently?
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
fwiffo said:
Sorry I'm late to the thread but somebody already mentioned eyes right? I thought eyes were one thing evolution had trouble explaining.

btw I believe in evolution, just don't hear people mention eyes very often.
I've seen this claim quite frequently, but never seen any proof for the (so-called) difficulty in explaining them. We have examples of primitive eyes, and a developmental path from basically simple photoreceptors to the complex kind of vision humans have. What is this difficulty explaining eyes?
 

Frission

Until I get thrown out.
May 16, 2011
865
0
21
Ryotknife said:
Doug said:
Evolution is as undeniable as gravity in terms of the evidence; and if the current theory of evolution is 'wrong', it'll be wrong in the same way as Newton's original theory of gravity - inaccurate but still a great approximation for every day use.
You can see the effects of gravity, you can perform experiments to show how gravity works. You can not do this with evolution. In fact for the average person you pretty much have to accept it on blind faith because a book told you so, which is not so much different from doing what the Bible says. In some ways evolution is like theoritical physics. A lot of thought and knowledge behind them, but nothing that is tangible or can be shown. Science is USUALLY tangible, either directly or indirectly.

Now, it does weird me out that there are a lot of people who take the bible literally instead of a book of stories to each us moral lessons and whatnot.
No, we have performed experiments. Look, I know I'm repeating myself, but a "theory" in science has some pretty solid information behind it. Heck, there's probably some in this thread or if you bothered to google. Heck google up Gregor Mendel. Do some actual research. Can you see atoms? Can you see the hydrogen bonds that make water? Of course not, but we can know they exist from certain properties it possess. Can you the electrons that are helping to power your computer right now? The argument that you won't believe what you can't see is stupid. Evolution is nothing like some baseless hypothesis.

It's okay if you don't understand it, but don't tar it under the same brush as religion.

OP: In my personal opinion evolution is a basic cornerstone. The fact that there's still a "Controversy" over it speaks very badly of the educational system.

EDIT: This is grade school stuff! All you need to do is read and inform yourself!

Why in the world are people still rejecting evolution?