Why do people reject evolution?

[Nimzabaat]

You aren't. You, however, are providing cover for people who try to. I have little problem with you thinking you saw evidence for both sides, as long as you are not trying to sway public opinion with things you can not hope to prove.

For the first bit you would have to actually read your own posts.

As for the second bit there; I think you've almost got what i'm talking about. People here should stop trying to sway peoples opinions out of reflex and just take all information on the subject with a grain of salt.

 

[wulf3n]

as long as you are not trying to sway public opinion with things you can not hope to prove

I love it.

A theory can never be proven right, only wrong, and yet, here everyone is trying sway public opinion with things that cannot hope to be proven.

I also find it somewhat depressing that everyone "believes" a theory rather than questions it. Questioning can only lead to a better understanding, but everyone here is content with ignorance.

 

[legend forge]

Not to be blunt or anything, but the only reason I have encountered ultimately comes down to not understanding it. I have never met someone who understood evolution and also disagreed with it. Maybe some hangups about the specifics sure, but the core concept is sound.

 

[Winthrop]

Because people (on both sides of the debate) don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. They also cannot differentiate between speciation, natural selection, and evolution. We cannot demonstrate natural selection, but evolution is verifiable in a lab. That isn't to say natural selection isn't evidenced, but by its very nature it cannot be proven experimentally. Scientific literacy is a big problem. People on both sides tend to believe what they believe because someone they respect told them to rather than because they evaluated the evidence and came to the decision themselves.

 

[aattss]

as long as you are not trying to sway public opinion with things you can not hope to prove

I love it.

A theory can never be proven right, only wrong, and yet, here everyone is trying sway public opinion with things that cannot hope to be proven.

A scientific theory is considered proven. The theory of gravity is right until proven wrong. Then, the theory of gravity is probably improved until it's accurate again.

A scientific theory is not a hypothesis of an inference.

 

[Olrod]

Because if the Bible is FALSE, then that somehow gives people free reign to go around stealing everything, and killing or raping everyone they see.

 

[Quaxar]

Do you know the one of the fundamental tenets of science is that nothing can ever truly be proven, and to believe a theory as fact is foolish.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, change over time is a fact. The gravitational theory is a scientific theory, objects falling towards a big mass is a fact.

You're acting like we're in a scientific discussion about two competing theories. If you say that you believe that gravitational theory as of now has some big issues like we don't know what is transmitting it and you are arguing holes in the theory and not holes in your KNOWLEDGE of it fine. But if you try to say that there is no such thing as things falling if I drop them on earth and that "gravity is just a theory" then I'd say I have every right to treat it factual to make a point.

I think you are confusing how evolution works. Natural selection is an essential part of change over time.

Really what makes you say that?

Natural Selection is existing genetic traits becoming more desirable due to environmental factors, causing a change in a species. But the changes already existed in the genetic code.

Evolution is changes to a species that don't exist in genetic code.

Alright, didn't know we could make up our own definitions now.
Where do you get the impression that natural selection only works in and for one species? It is a natural process inside a population, which is a defined as individuals belonging to the same species in the same area. Notice the italic text, it is very important.

When one population of a certain bird species lives on an island with plenty of vegetation while the other lives at 2000m altitude with scarce food natural selection for group A may produce big birds with a small beak for tender fruits and colourful plumage for sexual competition while for group B smaller size is favourable because it takes less food and oxygen to survive and because the food sources are rare the population can't grow like A, so there is no need for coloured feathering because the competition is smaller, also because in the scarce flora it is easier for birds of prey to spot the individuals less camouflaged.
After giving them enough time to diverge you take one bird out of each population, compare them and you might find that there isn't much similarities left.

And anyway, we have also observed changes not accounted for in the original genetic code.

Source?

I was hoping to avoid posting this link for a third time in the same thread but I guess I have to.

 

[wulf3n]

A scientific theory is considered proven.

A scientific theory is a tested hypothesis with no "known" gaps. It may be widely accepted but it is in no way proven.

The theory of gravity is right until proven wrong. Then, the theory of gravity is probably improved until it's accurate again.

That's dangerous logic. believing something is right, means people will be less likely to explore alternate avenues.

 

[Quaxar]

A scientific theory is considered proven.

A scientific theory is a tested hypothesis with no "known" gaps. It may be widely accepted but it is in no way proven.

The theory of gravity is right until proven wrong. Then, the theory of gravity is probably improved until it's accurate again.

That's dangerous logic. believing something is right, means people will be less likely to explore alternate avenues.

Maybe the <url=http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml>American Association for the Advancement of Science can help you two out:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

 

[wulf3n]

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, change over time is a fact. The gravitational theory is a scientific theory, objects falling towards a big mass is a fact.

when did I say otherwise?

You're acting like we're in a scientific discussion about two competing theories. If you say that you believe that gravitational theory as of now has some big issues like we don't know what is transmitting it and you are arguing holes in the theory and not holes in your KNOWLEDGE of it fine. But if you try to say that there is no such thing as things falling if I drop them on earth and that "gravity is just a theory" then I'd say I have every right to treat it factual to make a point.

wait? when did I ever say anything like that?

Alright, didn't know we could make up our own definitions now.
Where do you get the impression that natural selection only works in and for one species? It is a natural process inside a population, which is a defined as individuals belonging to the same species in the same area. Notice the italic text, it is very important.

Where are you getting my arguments from? I never said natural selection is only for one species? I was pointing out natural selection involves pre existing genetic code/traits.

Do you even understand what prompted the initial statement?

what's his name said Darwin observed Evolution. I questioned his understanding of Darwins theory claiming Darwin observed Natural Selection not Evolution.

And anyway, we have also observed changes not accounted for in the original genetic code.

Source?
I was hoping to avoid posting this link for a third time in the same thread but I guess I have to.

It may seem repetitive but you've got to remember you're arguing with several different people at the same time, not just one.

Maybe the <url=http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml>American Association for the Advancement of Science can help you two out:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

I think you're confusing the phenomena with the theory. No-ones questioning gravity exists, but it's perfectly valid to question the current theory as to why.

Likewise no-ones claiming natural selection doesn't exist, but it's perfectly valid to question the theory of evolution.

Sure it may have been observed, but that doesn't mean the current explanation is correct.

 

[Frission]

Also...why do you care so much if people believe in evolution or not? it is a minor issue. I dont see it interfering with science. Calm the F down. People have a right to their religious beliefs (so long as they dont hurt/interfere anyone).

Not to mention, I would imagine that most creationists are of the older generation. I know of plenty of 40+ creationists, but as for youths the only ones ive seen are from hardcore religious families. This is...probably...an issue that will alleviate itself over time, especially as more and more info and knowledge about evolution is revealed. The Bible has kinda hit a wall in that area

not to mention with atheism and agnosticism rapidly rising, this is a non-issue.

Well you're right about the last part. I think I'll sort itself out. Hopefully.

Just looking at this thread it's incredibly depressing how ignorant people can be. If someone can't understand something as simple as evolution, how will they understand the far more complex theory of climate change?

 

[Quaxar]

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, change over time is a fact. The gravitational theory is a scientific theory, objects falling towards a big mass is a fact.

when did I say otherwise?

You're acting like we're in a scientific discussion about two competing theories. If you say that you believe that gravitational theory as of now has some big issues like we don't know what is transmitting it and you are arguing holes in the theory and not holes in your KNOWLEDGE of it fine. But if you try to say that there is no such thing as things falling if I drop them on earth and that "gravity is just a theory" then I'd say I have every right to treat it factual to make a point.

wait? when did I ever say anything like that?
You said we shouldn't treat the theory of evolution as fact, I merely responded that in the setting of clearing up misconceptions or deliberate distortions/deceptions it is more than adequate to treat a theory as factual.

Natural Selection is existing genetic traits becoming more desirable due to environmental factors, causing a change in a species. But the changes already existed in the genetic code.

Evolution is changes to a species that don't exist in genetic code.

Alright, didn't know we could make up our own definitions now.
Where do you get the impression that natural selection only works in and for one species? It is a natural process inside a population, which is a defined as individuals belonging to the same species in the same area. Notice the italic text, it is very important.

Where are you getting my arguments from? I never said natural selection is only for one species? I was pointing out natural selection involves pre existing genetic code/traits.

Do you even understand what prompted the initial statement?

what's his name said Darwin observed Evolution. I questioned his understanding of Darwins theory claiming Darwin observed Natural Selection not Evolution.
Yes, and I'm correcting you insofar as that natural selection IS evolution. And I grant you your definition of natural selection leaves room to be interpreted right but there is also other ways to read it.
But you are plain wrong when you say that natural selection only works with existing genes. If a spontaneous mutation occured in one individual it will still be selected for according to its usefulness. Also, the thing you referred to as "evolution" is actually mutation. Evolution is simply change, however that may happen.

 

[Redhawkmillenium]

Let me make a distinction first:

The "theory of evolution" as in the hypothesis that animals do adapt (not did, but do) to their surroundings through generations by survival of the fittest is one thing. With regards to that, creationists/IDers like to use the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution are adaptations that bring traits in a population that already existed (a longer or shorter beak, for example) and simply make it more common or accentuated. This uses genetic information that already exists. Macroevolution are adaptations that create traits in a population that didn't exist at all before (a reptile suddenly developing feathers, for example). Macroevolution is the result of genetic information appearing that was not present at all in the population beforehand.

Microevolution is observable and is essentially a scientific fact; no creationists or IDers worth their salt will tell you that animals don't adapt and change to their environment. What they will tell you is that we have never observed conditions in the wild that would cause new, never-before-seen genetic information to appear in population. There are reasons one might lose genetic information, but not gain it. This IMO makes the macroevolution side of the theory of evolution tentative at best, and certainly not on the level of the theory of gravity. I can let go of an apple in front of me and observe it drop. No one has actually observed a change like fish turning into reptiles or reptiles turning into birds and mammals.

In a colloquial sense, though, the "theory of evolution" refers to the entire idea that the earth is billions of years old, life developed from some sort of primordial amino acid soup, and then slowly over the course of millions of years evolved into the life we know now. This is not a scientific theory that can be observed, tested, or repeated (and thus isn't even comparable to the theory of gravity); this is a suggested history of the world. Scientists start with the assumption that there has been no supernatural involvement in the development of the world, but they know life had to develop somehow. The proposed idea that life evolved slowly over time is the explanation for how life got to be how it is. The thing is, I reject that premise from the beginning. I don't think that there was no supernatural involvement in the development of the world. Without that premise, I simply have no reason to believe in an evolutionary history of the world over the history recorded in the Bible.

 

[Nexxis]

From my experience, people tend not to believe in evolution because:

1) they refuse to believe that the human race came from (or are related to) primates, which they see as lesser creatures.
2) they don't like the idea that the earth is more than just a few thousand years old and/or they want to stick to the bible's literal account that the world was created in 7 days.

I'm sure there are some other reasons out there, but these seem to be the ones I've run into the most.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

I can see what this thread is without even reading it, but I can't really get involved with that deep a debate.

People don't believe in evolution because they don't want it to be true. It brings a lot of people comfort to know that there's some purpose and order to life and they aren't in full control.

I mean, they're wrong, but to each his own.

 

[Wyes]

So is math a religion as well? Because I'm pretty sure that if I said the Pythagorean Theorem was false and that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is actually equall to the cubed root of the other two sides multiplied together, there would be quite a few people accusing me of stupidity and defending the Theorem.

Really? Most of the mathematicians I know would ask you to prove it. If you could, and they could find no holes in your proof, they'd probably accept it (though they'd be very confused as to how maths has worked this long considering how much maths is based on that theorem).

 

[MrFalconfly]

Let me make a distinction first:

The "theory of evolution" as in the hypothesis that animals do adapt (not did, but do) to their surroundings through generations by survival of the fittest is one thing. With regards to that, creationists/IDers like to use the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution are adaptations that bring traits in a population that already existed (a longer or shorter beak, for example) and simply make it more common or accentuated. This uses genetic information that already exists. Macroevolution are adaptations that create traits in a population that didn't exist at all before (a reptile suddenly developing feathers, for example). Macroevolution is the result of genetic information appearing that was not present at all in the population beforehand.

OK. I can see where you are going. Micro evolution is simply minor changes usually involving existing traits (larger ears, thicker fur so on).

Microevolution is observable and is essentially a scientific fact; no creationists or IDers worth their salt will tell you that animals don't adapt and change to their environment. What they will tell you is that we have never observed conditions in the wild that would cause new, never-before-seen genetic information to appear in population. There are reasons one might lose genetic information, but not gain it. This IMO makes the macroevolution side of the theory of evolution tentative at best, and certainly not on the level of the theory of gravity. I can let go of an apple in front of me and observe it drop. No one has actually observed a change like fish turning into reptiles or reptiles turning into birds and mammals.

No new information you say? Well how about Lenski's E.Coli Long-Term Evolution experiment which explicitly showed that the bacteria E.Coli as a result of two mutations (alterations to the genetic code) evolved the new ability (from "information" that didn't exist in the original population) to digest citrate (normal E.Coli can only digest glucose or similar carbohydrates, not citrate). Or maybe those Italian Wall Lizards that developed cecal-valves (again requiring new genetic information).

I guess it depends on you definition of new, since I would think the genetic trait of blue eyes would be new if previously there were only brown eyes.

In a colloquial sense, though, the "theory of evolution" refers to the entire idea that the earth is billions of years old, life developed from some sort of primordial amino acid soup, and then slowly over the course of millions of years evolved into the life we know now. This is not a scientific theory that can be observed, tested, or repeated (and thus isn't even comparable to the theory of gravity); this is a suggested history of the world. Scientists start with the assumption that there has been no supernatural involvement in the development of the world, but they know life had to develop somehow. The proposed idea that life evolved slowly over time is the explanation for how life got to be how it is. The thing is, I reject that premise from the beginning. I don't think that there was no supernatural involvement in the development of the world. Without that premise, I simply have no reason to believe in an evolutionary history of the world over the history recorded in the Bible.

No. No no no.

And if it is then that tendency should be corrected.

Evolution only refers to "change-over-time" in the broadest sense and if explicitly named "The theory of Evolution" it can only ever ever ever refer to the scientific theory pertaining to biological evolution by natural selection.

As for the age of the world. We have methods (that are proven to work) to date such things (and the people using those methods are well aware of the pit-falls of those dating methods. Carbon-14 dating for example can only be used on organic matter and if that matter was an undersea creature then it's subject to the reservoir effect which creates a false date). And the many dating methods used are all independently pointing to the same age (plus or minus a few 100.000 years which isn't that bad considering it's an age of about 4.500.000.000 years). Now why would several different "clocks" working in several different ways (different decay rates, different types of decay, different types of analyses like spectrum dating or isochron dating, all that) all point to the same date if that wasn't true?

Deep time is a well understood and well supported theory of the world (deep time being the geological term for the long ages of the earth). As for the formation of the solar system. Well I can only say that we are currently observing similar events in distant star-forming nebulae where proto-stars have accretion-discs which would naturally form into planets (take a look at the Orion-nebula, or maybe the Eagle nebula. But make sure it's IR pictures because the visible spectrum is blocked by the dust).

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Microevolution is observable and is essentially a scientific fact; no creationists or IDers worth their salt will tell you that animals don't adapt and change to their environment. What they will tell you is that we have never observed conditions in the wild that would cause new, never-before-seen genetic information to appear in population. There are reasons one might lose genetic information, but not gain it. This IMO makes the macroevolution side of the theory of evolution tentative at best, and certainly not on the level of the theory of gravity. I can let go of an apple in front of me and observe it drop. No one has actually observed a change like fish turning into reptiles or reptiles turning into birds and mammals.

Wrong we have observed both Micro evolution and Macro Evolution in laboratories. Macro Evolution in essence is just the accumulation of Micro evolution. I've already given examples and sources of this such as ring species. What makes you think there are conditions that would make something lose genetic information, but not gain? I assume you never heard of addition mutations or frame-shift mutations, which was the cause of nylon eating bacteria.

What are your sources because I think they're wrong or you're misreading them.

In a colloquial sense, though, the "theory of evolution" refers to the entire idea that the earth is billions of years old, life developed from some sort of primordial amino acid soup, and then slowly over the course of millions of years evolved into the life we know now. This is not a scientific theory that can be observed, tested, or repeated (and thus isn't even comparable to the theory of gravity); this is a suggested history of the world.

Actually it is, radioactive decay is observable, testable and repeatable. But lets not just stop with Geochronology (Radiometric Dating Methods), there's Electron Spin Resonance, Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating, Flourine Dating, Patination Dating, Oxidizable Carbon Ratio Dating, Coral dating, Cation Ratio, Pollen Analysis, Ice Core dating, Fission-track Dating,Amino Acid Racemization, Carbon dating etc.

All these dating methods from just about every branch of science support an old earth, even dendrochronology (tree ring dating) Says the world is at least 11,000 years old, a far bit older than the 6,500 years the YEC would have you believe. It's not a suggested history, it's a proven one that has evidence and consistency backing it.

Scientists start with the assumption that there has been no supernatural involvement in the development of the world, but they know life had to develop somehow. The proposed idea that life evolved slowly over time is the explanation for how life got to be how it is. The thing is, I reject that premise from the beginning. I don't think that there was no supernatural involvement in the development of the world. Without that premise, I simply have no reason to believe in an evolutionary history of the world over the history recorded in the Bible.

Of course science doesn't start with the assumption that a supernatural is responsible, if it did it wouldn't be science and rainbows would still be considered an act of god. Your religious view have obviously sealed you off with a biased view and no amount of evidence or proof is going to change that.

 

[texanarob]

I personally believe in Creation over evolution, and would willingly debate my point if I believed I could change anybody's mind. The problem is, people have made up their minds before clicking this link, and definitely before reading this far.

If the creation vs evolution debate was simple enough to fit into a few posts and videos on a thread, it wouldn't still be a debate. I'm therefore going to avoid the flame war, leaving you with a few questions:

1. Isn't it handy when you can take select quotes out of context to portray your opposition as ignorant?
2. Isn't it equally handy when animated pictures of genealogies constitute evidence?
3. Isn't it strange that, when forming an origins theory, the best man can do is say stuff changed into other stuff (an oversimplification, but accurate enough).

EDIT:
Having read above my post, I'm irritated by a few things.
Evolutionary theory and the theories of the Big Bang and Old Earth may not be synonymous, but are linked enough that the belief in one implies belief in the others. To any theistic evolutionists reading this, read Genesis instead.

Secondly, a species gaining an ability and gaining genetic code are entirely different. I don't eat sushi, many Japanese people (don't want to be racist, but it's a reasonable cultural stereotype) do. They are not a separate species to me. True macro-evolution would describe the origins of the digestive system, or the optical system, whereby irreducible complexity prevents a combination of micro-evolutionary steps causing significant change.

And I am aware that we have found 'old' creatures with basic light sensors. This is akin to saying a bicycle evolved into a motorbike, into a car and finally into an aeroplane. (shut up spell-check aeroplane is right).

And I leave you with this to ponder: Why do you get so irritated with this topic? Only Micro-evolution is usable in lab research or applied use, so it isn't for scientific reasons. The only logical reason for such over defensive behaviour is determination that you are not answerable to a higher being.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

If the creation vs evolution debate was simple enough to fit into a few posts and videos on a thread, it wouldn't still be a debate. I'm therefore going to avoid the flame war, leaving you with a few questions:

Well technically there is no debate, at least not in the scientific community. There is a reason why the intelligent design people don't publish anything for peer review or why a right wing religious judge tossed out the idea of teaching it in schools.

One side uses evidence and facts while the other uses ancient text and faith. There is absolutely no evidence to support creationism.