Why do people reject evolution?

[GildaTheGriffin]

Evolution is nothing but created by stubborn atheist who try to disprove anything they think is not real. It's always about them, never about others. It just ignorant people who twist the world to THEIR desire. As a Christian, I find offensive to twist people's mind to think like yourself and never give them the freedom to think upon themselves.

This is why people respond badly to not following evolution. I understand that both sides are a kneejerk reaction of "I'M RIGHT".

But
"This disgarees with what I think. Must be a trick by someone to confuse people of my lifestyle."
is not carefully assessing the issue. But I guess you don't feel liek being the " bigger man", rather than an equal man.

I understand some of your points but they seem to be based purely on lack of knowledge. I know this is a go to point, but holes can easily be, and have been filled by this thread. I see you are doing well to ask questions.

Also, that paragraph I quoted seems very hypocritical. Forgive me if I merely use this oppurtunity for what could be a horrible strawman, but what you just said was "Only ignorant people would push something like this as knowledge because they want to bring people to their own way of thinking. I find it offensive that they don't allow free thinking, i.e. that I am right because I'm not "ignorant".". I'm not sure how pushing something as fact automatically makes someone igorant. I'm sorry that my only response is "This is a matter of science, a method of trying to learn about the world, through evidence and tests, and what we learn is used to better ourselves and our understanding.
If it is wrong (through evidence from collected testable data) we will change it. The reason why people don't consider your view is both because they had already considered it ages ago, since your view hasn't changed since it started, and that it is not imcompatible with them." It will affect neither your faith or your way of life to accept evolution, but of course that's a stupid way to encourage if you actually believe there's some holes in it.

I would like more non-believers to have something against evolution ebcause it would make it seem less like a battle of opinion, and the lacks of facts or evidence you claim. In this situation I'm fairly sure people would respond with something along the lines of "Why does evidence and devleopment of knowledge mean anything you, and undermine this position, when your view is held by one uncheckable source, that apparently doesn't rely on testing to be correct".

I can find belieivng in a God a logical thing to do, but I often ask myself why after that revelation, people pick a specific religion, because it seems like putting your hand in a hat for a slip of paper and choosing, or just picking your favourite book, thus making it true. Otherwise true only because it says so. Maybe you or others thoguht the morals were good, but why does that make every story in it true?

As an atheist, it would reassure me that you really want people to have free thought if you told me you'd raisd hypothetical kids without telling them your stance is the right one. Are you going to do that? It would add much more weight to what you say. When religion is asked about will you say "these people believe this", instead of "there once was a guy called Jesus"? Will you wait until your children are mature enough to decide for themselves, or will you take them to church every sunday?

Now, you're probably thinking I was raised atheist. Not really. I wasn't raised to believe anything, despite living across the road from a chapel. No one told me what was real and what wasn't. When I got to the question I merely gave my own answer. I'm not saying you didn't find your religion yourself, I just hope your stance on freedom of thought extends to what you want to teach your kids, when so many religious people merely go "I'll teach them to believe what I believe, because it's right"

We can and do witness evolution in labs. I understand on a larger scale this is harder to grasp, and if you honestly read through the examples and analogies of this whole thread then I have nothing to tell you.

And the whole thing about being really lucky is, unless you exist unlike all the things that don't, you cannot comment on the unlikliness of your existence.The only reason you can is because you exist. If there's only some random percent chance, let's say 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that what exists does and only that exists, it still isn't great cause for "purpose" since ONLY that which exists can observe that. By existing, you are defaulty that small percentage.
Think of all the sperm that didn't make it to life. They can't comment on them not receiving life because they have no sentience in which to do so.
It's not like the lottery where it's just hard to win ,it'd be like if the lottery only existed because you won it.

I looked further and notice you put

2. Darwinism is a word, not a term. Go look it up.

I would say word and term are synonyms, but okay, here's a look up:

"Darwinism originally included broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.Though it usually refers strictly to biological evolution, the term has been misused by creationists to refer to the origin of life and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution which have no connection to Darwin's work."

And the reason people think you're torlling them is you seem to respond with evidence with "That's not right" without giving a why. "We are unique in our own nature". I don't know whether to respond with yes or no, since that is a vague statement. My response is somewhere on the lines of "So?"

We are unique in nature thus we aren't similar?
We are unique in nature thus we are unloike anything else?
Does other things having a head, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, a mouth, two arms, and two legs make us less unique?

This isn't a quantifiable thing unless you be more specific. You just shurgging off data since you didn't test it yourself, then excusing that lack of wanting to udnerstand with vague...I don't even know the word. I wouldn't even call it observation...

You don't disprove evidence you merely ignore it. Staitng there is none solves nothing. Say what's wrong with it.

No evidence for evolution?
We mutate cells, we breed dogs.

Evolutionn can at a simple level be explained as random utaiton that leads to big change over time. I don't see it as having a stimulus, since it is not a sentient force. It might be described as a checmical or biological reaciton, but I don't know why mutations take place. I'm not a biologist, and I don't have to be to tell you they take place. We ourselves have simple mutations over our observed existence. I, for example, have ginger hair. Other people have blue eyes. And apart form that, we have races of people.

I know you are biased because you think atheists are evil. What attmept would you want to make to understand their position? You seem to put evolution under more scepticism than your own faith. Why is it that "You didn't witness it" it a problem for evolution and not your faith? I really wish this wasn't a versus thing, but your problem seems to be your faith is in the way, when it's even compatible with religion. You say you claim the facts are wrong, yet you claim that it's atheists trying to deceive you and I bet not in that order. Why turn it into such a thing like that? Even though absolutely NOTHING about takes away from your religion. Going again it for those reasons when they're arne't problems on such a tested theory only makes yourself look like you are afraid of other explanations. Sure, evolution could turn out to be wrong ( and this is giving you rope to try to be respectful to you, evne thgough you'll probably only choke me with it) that is the nature of science, trial and error til answer, but considering all that falls in line, it would take a MASSIVE discovery, signalling some horrendous fluke of a ridiculous ammount of already acquired scientific data to call it into question.

TL;DR. Sorry for seeming arrogant to your reply, but seriously, if you wanted to explain something to me then try using shorter sentences and making sense, or otherwise I think your hiding something in that big wall of text.

Evolution can be explain in a very dynamic way, not a detail account of what you think.

When religion and evolution mixes it makes me... uncomfortable. Because it goes against everything I believe, and makes the Bible seem like a big fairytail. Evolution has no real proof of conception. At least the Bible carried words for over 4,000 years to bring good morals to our society, and evolution carried nothing more than fossils and bones. If you find me arrogant in what I think, then your arrogant in my freedom to think for myself.

 

[DracoSuave]

That's what I was saying: MRSA had the stimulation to defend itself and mutate, but that does go to the level of the human genome. If these apes had the same viral infection as us, then are you saying my ancestors were nothing but apes?

Uh, yeah. The chances of having non-ape ancestors are so slim you have a better chance of winning 100 different lotteries on the same day you survive a plane crash even tho you're already injured but surviving a direct meteor strike.

THAT is more likely, than us and the great apes not sharing ancestors... after all, there's over a dozen ERVs shared.

If so, then how in the hell did everyone else have this virus if they are not even my ancestor?

We all have the same common ancestor, the same ancestor as apes and it goes further back than that.

Remember: You can't have successful offspring if they are to your bloodline. Like having sex with your cousin and her giving birth to a mental damaged baby or it having some sort of disorder.

Inbreeding will reinforce recessive genes, but it is not a guarantee of negative effects on the offspring. That's a common misconception but is not supported by genetics. It does lower the rate of evolution, but it does not guarantee unviable offspring.

That what I'm asking: How can they be my ancestor if they are connected to everyone else on this planet?

Because--they are EVERYONE'S ancestors.

How is that difficult to accept?

 

[GildaTheGriffin]

Because it's easier to believe in a LIE then to face the TRUTH.

What truth may that be?

 

[afroebob]

I think its a common misconception that people deny evolution because of an unwavering faith in God as much as the mindset that if they come to terms with the truth that evolution is real then they feel that they will lose their faith in God. So, from what I see at least, it isn't a strong faith in God that makes people deny evolution, its a wavering one, a person who is walking the line of believing that they will do whatever they deem necessary not to cross out of fear of what might or might not be. It is the fear that makes them this way, and it is the true man of faith that can accept facts and still believe in God.

This is, of course, excluding the religious fanatics who are delusional to reality (not trying to sound sacrilegious in anyway, I am a man of faith myself) and think that no matter what anybody else says they are right and always will be.

 

[supermanNBC]

I stopped believing in evolution when a published book stated that they dated the fossils by the rocks they found them in. Then later on, in the same book, stated that they dated the rocks by the fossils they were found in. I wish I could remember that book, unfortunately read back in high school, and that was more than 12-13 years ago, sorry bad memory. All arguments aside, evolution, what do you have to look forward too after death, even evolution has no explanation, the same can be said about every religion out their. So believe in nothing after this life, or a continued journey onto the next. Not a hard decision in my book.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

\

That's what I was saying: MRSA had the stimulation to defend itself and mutate, but that does go to the level of the human genome. If these apes had the same viral infection as us, then are you saying my ancestors were nothing but apes? If so, then how in the hell did everyone else have this virus if they are not even my ancestor? Remember: You can't have successful offspring if they are to your bloodline. Like having sex with your cousin and her giving birth to a mental damaged baby or it having some sort of disorder. That what I'm asking: How can they be my ancestor if they are connected to everyone else on this planet?

1. For starters we are apes. This is not up for debate humans are classified as apes, I'm an ape, you're an ape your parents are apes deal with it.

2. We all have a common maternal ancestor that lived about 150,000 years ago, everyone alive today is related to her we know this because of markers that were passed down from mother to offspring. The same can be done for fraternal DNA for males, are most common male ancestor lived around 60 thousand years ago. The gap difference is just evidence that males are cheating pigs.

3. I don't think you understand what constitutes as inbreeding, for instance I have blue eyes and every blued eyed person is related to a closer common ancestor, but if marry a blue eyed girl we're not going to have mental damaged baby's as we are to far apart to have any complications. In fact royal families practiced inbreeding to try and keep their blood lines pure for ages and they never produced mental damaged baby's. The inherited genetic disorders because of it, before they found it it was actually doing harm. Once you get passed 2ed cousin there really is no risk of complications from inbreeding.

 

[GildaTheGriffin]

That's what I was saying: MRSA had the stimulation to defend itself and mutate, but that does go to the level of the human genome. If these apes had the same viral infection as us, then are you saying my ancestors were nothing but apes?

Uh, yeah. The chances of having non-ape ancestors are so slim you have a better chance of winning 100 different lotteries on the same day you survive a plane crash even tho you're already injured but surviving a direct meteor strike.

THAT is more likely, than us and the great apes not sharing ancestors... after all, there's over a dozen ERVs shared.

If so, then how in the hell did everyone else have this virus if they are not even my ancestor?

We all have the same common ancestor, the same ancestor as apes and it goes further back than that.

Remember: You can't have successful offspring if they are to your bloodline. Like having sex with your cousin and her giving birth to a mental damaged baby or it having some sort of disorder.

Inbreeding will reinforce recessive genes, but it is not a guarantee of negative effects on the offspring. That's a common misconception but is not supported by genetics. It does lower the rate of evolution, but it does not guarantee unviable offspring.

That what I'm asking: How can they be my ancestor if they are connected to everyone else on this planet?

Because--they are EVERYONE'S ancestors.

How is that difficult to accept?

But how do you know that? Show proof that they are my ancestor. Apes are nothing like us... I'M nothing like them. WE are nothing like them. I remember watching an ape take feces out of it's rear and eat it! Even knowing it had food around it, it decided to eat it's own feces. Watching something like that makes me not even proud to relate myself to such garbage. We have nothing in common with them, and if they are truly are our ancestors then I'm hope your proud to compare us to such mindless beast.

Unless your comparing me too regular people of the world then... yeah. I'll agree to that.

Also Inbreeding does... always... relate to negative effects on offspring. I'v seen it in real life and it's disgusting.

 

[GildaTheGriffin]

\

3. I don't think you understand what constitutes as inbreeding, for instance I have blue eyes and every blued eyed person is related to a closer common ancestor, but if marry a blue eyed girl we're not going to have mental damaged baby's as we are to far apart to have any complications. In fact royal families practiced inbreeding to try and keep their blood lines pure for ages and they never produced mental damaged baby's. The inherited genetic disorders because of it, before they found it it was actually doing harm. Once you get passed 2ed cousin there really is no risk of complications from inbreeding.

Just because you have blue eyes doesn't make you related to them. It a random genetic in all of us, though that random eye color becomes... strengthened... by your close relatives.

I've seen inbreeding before and it truly is dysfunctional and disgusting.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

I stopped believing in evolution when a published book stated that they dated the fossils by the rocks they found them in. Then later on, in the same book, stated that they dated the rocks by the fossils they were found in. I wish I could remember that book, unfortunately read back in high school, and that was more than 12-13 years ago, sorry bad memory. All arguments aside, evolution, what do you have to look forward too after death, even evolution has no explanation, the same can be said about every religion out their. So believe in nothing after this life, or a continued journey onto the next. Not a hard decision in my book.

This is a recycled Kent Hovind lie, we both know you didn't read any book, epically since that has more to do with the age of the earth than evolution. Not a hard decision to believe a lie than the truth, I agree lies are often easier, but that doesn't make them right.

Try actually reading a book on radiometric dating and other techniques.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Just because you have blue eyes doesn't make you related to them. It a random genetic in all of us, though that random eye color becomes... strengthened... by your close relatives.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong or not fact checking things before replying? Gotta ask.

http://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html

When religion and evolution mixes it makes me... uncomfortable. Because it goes against everything I believe, and makes the Bible seem like a big fairytail. Evolution has no real proof of conception. At least the Bible carried words for over 4,000 years to bring good morals to our society, and evolution carried nothing more than fossils and bones. If you find me arrogant in what I think, then your arrogant in my freedom to think for myself.

Well the bible has been written and rewritten over 4,000 years, and what are these "Good" morals do you speak of? Selling your daughter into slavery, stoning to death a disobedient child, how about killing someone who works on Sunday? Because according to your bible that not only ok, but encouraged. FYI the bible is a fairytale, but this is not the place for a religious debate.

 

[GildaTheGriffin]

Truth can only be sown by what you believe. My grandma always told me that. :3

Though I feel like... maybe I am right and other people are wrong. Good way to get your self-esteem up. XD

It's midnight, I'm just running crazy. ^_^

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Truth can only be sown by what you believe.

Serial killers and terrorists share that same mentality. Facts lead you to the truth, your gut leads you to trouble.

 

[Dinwatr]

TL;DR. Sorry for seeming arrogant to your reply, but seriously, if you wanted to explain something to me then try using shorter sentences and making sense, or otherwise I think your hiding something in that big wall of text.

You want us to boil down a theory that encompasses numerous sciences and which has been studied by the best minds in science for well over two centuries to soundbites? That says everything I need to know about your level of honesty in this discussion.

This stuff IS HARD. It takes a long, long time to wrap your head around it, and there are many parts I still don't get (I know the concept of fitness space, but try wrapping your head around a boiling n-dimensional sea where gravity works opposite of how it works in reality and see what it does to YOUR grey cells). You want easy? Don't study evolution. Simple as that.

That's what I was saying: MRSA had the stimulation to defend itself and mutate,

That's not what happened at all. The mutations were there in the population, or were happening randomly. The addition of a selection pressure didn't create mutations. It merely made them more viable. That's that boiling part of fitness space I was talking about--it changes constantly.

And this stuff DOES happen to humans. Europeans are better at processing alcohol than Native Americans, for example. That's because Europeans had such poor sanitation that only beer (well, boiled water, but they used it to make beer) was safe to drink. That created a strong selection pressure, which made Europeans more able to cope with alcohol. The mutations are there--some can process it more efficiently than others, all other factors being equal--the selection merely made the higher end of processing more advantageous.

I stopped believing in evolution when a published book stated that they dated the fossils by the rocks they found them in. Then later on, in the same book, stated that they dated the rocks by the fossils they were found in

Allow me to clarify, then. Rocks were originally dated via fossils, by the principle of Faunal Succession. Basically it's a fancy name for the fact that certain organisms show up in certain packets of rock. Groups of species all seemed to occur at the same time. This led to a system of relative dating we know as the geologic column. The key point here is RELATIVE dating--I can say "This rock is older than that other", but I can't say by how much. Could be a week, could be fifty million years, and I'd have now way to differentiate.

After the discovery of radioactive isotopes, it was discovered that you can use the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes to determine how old something is. This is empirically demonstrated--it's the principle used by hospitals during certain procedures requiring radioactive tracers. Applied properly (note that--that's why the Mt. St. Helens dating is invalid, as the lab that did the dating stated quite clearly in their report), this works for rocks as well. This allowed us to get the absolute date of rocks--that is, how old they are compared to the present. But there's a limitation: this only works for igneous and metamorphic rocks.

Fortunately, volcanoes occur around lakes and oceans with surprising frequency. Gerta Keller has made a career of this, if you want to fact-check me. Anyway, certain species occur over a wide geographic range, but a relatively short temporal range, making them ideal markers for relative dating. Fortunate finds of these fossils in lakes that include volcanic flows has allowed us to put absolute dates on them--we know when they started, and when they stopped (plus or minus a bit, for various reasons). So now we've got fossils tied to dates. A perfect example of this is Bison antiquis, a fossil that defines the Holocene/Pleistocene boundary in California (these fossils aren't required to be small, they just usually are). You find a B. antiquis horn core, you know you're looking at rock that's more than 10,000 years old, unless something really weird has happened.

So yeah, we use the rocks to date the fossils and the fossils to date the rocks--but it's more that we're using two different dating mechanisms to check each other.

I've glossed over quite a bit with this explanation--I've got several books on the topic (Principles of Isotopic Geochemistry is the most critical one, but any good university-level sedimentation and stratigraphy textbook will also address this), and nothing I post here will actually do it justice. I will say, though, that this is constantly being tested. In fact, my own field work is exactly this sort of test. I do salvage paleontology, and one of the things I look for is anything that would contradict the process I just described (technically speaking such a find would be classified as scientifically significant under the SVP guidelines and BLM IM 2008-009).

 

[DracoSuave]

But how do you know that? Show proof that they are my ancestor.

Aren't we discussing that evidence?

You're like a cop at a murder scene, and as the coroner is describing the cause of death, you're going 'Okay but what's the cause of death?' You're like a judge at a trial who is being shown the murder weapon and the finger prints of the accused and then asking 'So when are we going to talk about the evidence a murder happened?'

Apes are nothing like us... I'M nothing like them. WE are nothing like them.

Nothing like them, except of course, that:

We're a living organism (Biota)
made of cells (Cytota)
consisting of cells with complex structures (Eukaryota)
that feeds on organic matter (Animalia)
having bilateral symmetry (Bilateria)
with body cavities (Coelomata)
with a central feeding tube that develops anus furst (deuterostomia)
that has a central nervous cord (Chordata)
protected by a spine (Vertebrata)
and possessing a jaw (Gnathostomata)
with four limbs (Tetrapoda)
the ability to produce milk (Mammalia)
arms that allow gripping and swinging (Primate)
specific nostril structures (Haplorhini)
dry nose and land locomotion (Catarhini)
no tail, and arboreal motion restricted to arms (Hominoidea)
partial to full bipediality (Hominidae)

but no... nothing at all in common with them except, of course, the most important parts of our development short of relative hairlessness, being fully bipedal.

I remember watching an ape take feces out of it's rear and eat it!

And you think humans haven't? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Girls_1_Cup]

You really don't understand your OWN species that well, do you?

Even knowing it had food around it, it decided to eat it's own feces. Watching something like that makes me not even proud to relate myself to such garbage. We have nothing in common with them, and if they are truly are our ancestors then I'm hope your proud to compare us to such mindless beast.

1) They aren't our ancestors. We share common ancestry. There's a world of difference between the two, and even if you don't agree with evolution, you need to at least have the honesty to admit what evolution DOES say, and not make up bullshit and call it evolution.

2) They are not mindless beasts. Research is being done into the morality and ethical systems of primates and other animals, and it's very fascinating work. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAFQ5kUHPkY] Check out Frans de Waal's TED Talk.

You're REALLY discrediting the actual work done to look at this in order to support a preconceived notion.

3) It doesn't matter if you're comfortable with the truth-if the evidence says it's the truth, it's the truth. You don't have to like it.

Unless your comparing me too regular people of the world then... yeah. I'll agree to that.

Your personal hubris is not helping you win your argument.

Also Inbreeding does... always... relate to negative effects on offspring. I'v seen it in real life and it's disgusting.

You're taking animals closely related to each other (and a small sample size) saying that it is impossible for -distant- relatives to mate--and yet in many cultures sex between cousins is not uncommon, and doesn't lead to negative offspring.

But we're not talking about close cousins, we're talking about EXTREMELY distant cousins that are geneticly diverse. That works just fine.

 

[Zen Toombs]

When religion and evolution mixes it makes me... uncomfortable. Because it goes against everything I believe, and makes the Bible seem like a big fairytail. Evolution has no real proof of conception. At least the Bible carried words for over 4,000 years to bring good morals to our society, and evolution carried nothing more than fossils and bones. If you find me arrogant in what I think, then your arrogant in my freedom to think for myself.

Just so you know, you might want to spoiler or snip when you have that large of a quote. It saves space and so forth.

Regardless, why does the mix of religion and evolution make you uncomfortable? They provide answers to two different questions. Also, evolution and the Christian religion[footnote]I'm assuming Christian because you mention the Bible specifically[/footnote] are not actually controdictory, so long as you aren't a person who believes that every word of the Bible is a historical fact.

Spoiler: If you do think the Bible is literally 100% true in every sense...

to quote Bartlet from West Wing:

Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an "abomination."
Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.
Jacobs: 18:22.
Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? (Pause) While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important, because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

Even in the New Testament, there are all sorts of silly things especially if you try to interpret them literally. And remember that the Bible is a book that was 1) written by dozens of people 2) long after the events occurred 3) long before the invention of the cotton gin (let alone the cameras or internet) 4) in a completely different language than English, and 4.5) that translation has been butchered both accidently (monks spent days at a time locked in towers translating and transcribing. heck yeah they'll make a few mistakes!) and purposefully (King James explicitly mucked about in different parts of his version of the Bible, and there are whole sections of the Bible that were written by bored monks locked in towers). Oh, and 6) the books of the Bible were considered "canon" due to politics from hundreds of years ago.

The Bible is a good book that has given humanity a lot, but there is no reason to take it as gospel. Evolution is undeniably how nature works, and it is very conceivable that a deity (in this case, the Judeo-Christian God) could set up the "rules of evolution" or use evolution as its tool.

Also, what do you mean by "Evolution has no real proof of conception."?

 

[blaize2010]

People don't like having to think, which is what understanding evolution requires.

It never even took that much thought with me, the theory is sound and has plenty of evidence to it, whereas magic sky man making everything and then like 90% of it died was a bit strange. From an early age I was introduced to the theory, to the point where I actually debated with my pastor about it (raised methodist). Then again he was an advocate of both theories merged as one, that whatever God exists facilitated the ability for life to evolve, which I have to admit appealed to me back then when I still hadn't come to the terms with the idea that there may be no god.
Here's to you pastor Dale, I might not believe in God anymore but that isn't your fault.

 

[Dinwatr]

Also Inbreeding does... always... relate to negative effects on offspring.

Not always. It increases the odds of recessive genes becoming expressed. A lot of genetic disorders happen to be recessive. What actually happens is that inbreeding increases the rate at which genes reach fixation (ie, there are no other alleles in the population), regardless of whether the alleles are beneficial or detrimental.

There's an equation called the Hardy-Weinburg Equlibrium (p^2+2pq+q^2=1) that addresses this. Basically, it says that given a set of assumptions (random breeding, infinite population size, no selection pressure, etc) the percentage of each allele in one generation will be the same as the percentage in the previous and the next. Obviously inbreeding violates a few of those assumptions. The more those assumptions are violated, the more random chance plays a role--and inbreeding, being a major violation of numerous assumptions, makes random chance a very, very strong player in the evolution of that population.

Watching something like that makes me not even proud to relate myself to such garbage.

The universe doesn't ask our permission to be the way it is. It simply IS the way it is. We have to live with that. Our personal opinions are quite irrelevant.

If you do think the Bible is literally 100% true in every sense...

It's not. It has widely-known historical errors. Pi=/=3. There is no geological evidence for the parting of the Red Sea (and we know what to look for, because other seas have experienced similar situations). The list goes on. For the faithful, these aren't important--the meaning of the stories in the book (even true things can be stories) is important. For the rest of us, they're irrelevant, because we don't hold it as true anyway. And I'm not just talking atheists here--Muslims and Hindus don't have any cause to believe the Bible is true, any more than atheists do.

 

[Wedgetail122]

Can I please say to some, and I don't want to turn this onto a religious debate but, please don't make the assumption that everybody who believes in a higher power rejects Darwinian theories as such things can be compatible. Other than religious loyalty some people reject the theory for other similar theories of human development, some individuals can get frustrated with the minor details of evolution that are often changed. I'm sure that there are even some people that reject the Law of gravity in favor of other weird theories. After all these are just theories, theories with a fair amount of logical explanation and evidence that strongly support it, but still theories none the less. people will reject them. But the majority of people (including me) support the idea of Evolution.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

who cares, who really cares
i am not the most religious person
you can call me agnostic, but jeez

if they want to not believe in evolution, no one gives a sh** the fact that your putting so much effort into this says that you have entirely too much time out side

go out side , meet a people, make friends, do something with your life

The reason people give a shit is that creationists want to take one of sciences most well tested and established theories, with heaps of evidence to support it, out of the science classroom and teach children an idea that has never been tested or observed. That is the goal of the majority of people who reject evolution and that makes it a genuinely important issue.

while the taking a thing out of the classroom i agree with

the "That is the goal of the majority of people who reject evolution and that makes it a genuinely important issue"
is complete and utter billshit
don't use a noble cause like trying to teach children an alternate theory than just animals popping up , to cover up your religious bias shit slinging

Thank you for misinterpreting my concern for the future of education and dismissing it as religious bias with no reason to do so. No I have nothing against religious people as long as they A) are also tolerant people and B) they don't try to push their beliefs as facts. The reason I say this is their goal is (and I admit this is sort of an argument from incredulity) if you don't believe what's being taught in classrooms why wouldn't you try to have it replaced with your own "theory"? I suppose I may just be meeting a few bad apples but the majority of creationists I've encountered either want Evolution out of the classroom or taught alongside Creationism as if both were equally valid (which they aren't.)

Even if it isn't the majority there are still a number of creationists (including Ken Ham, Michael Behe, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, the Hovinds and William Lane Craig) who seek to supplant a scientifically vindicated theory with an unsupported hypothesis.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

That's what I was saying: MRSA had the stimulation to defend itself and mutate, but that does go to the level of the human genome. If these apes had the same viral infection as us, then are you saying my ancestors were nothing but apes? If so, then how in the hell did everyone else have this virus if they are not even my ancestor? Remember: You can't have successful offspring if they are to your bloodline. Like having sex with your cousin and her giving birth to a mental damaged baby or it having some sort of disorder. That what I'm asking: How can they be my ancestor if they are connected to everyone else on this planet?

You seem to misunderstand what i wrote. Lemme draw you a picture

This explains how we share the virus with the apes. First off you and your cousin wouldnt produce damaged offspring until about 5 generations of SOLID inbreeding. Inbreeding actually only doubles the chance of a genetic disorder from 2% to about 4%. This is just because any negative genes you have your cousin likely has too. So if you breed the chances of you both having the same negative gene are twice as high as if you did with a random person. If you both have the negative gene the baby has a chance to have the disorder. However few people have the negative gene anyway so its usually fine. You definitely CAN have successful offspring. Dont lecture me on biology dude

This is total proof you SHARE an ancestor. Apes are NOT YOUR ANCESTORS. They are your distant COUSINS with a SHARED ancestor. The evidence is this virus DNA. If the explanation isnt that our ancestor got infected with 7 virus's and passed it down to all of us youre saying 2 totally seperate organisms got 7 totally indentical virus's in their balls at around the same time in history which is SO immensely unlikely that theres not even a number i can express that with. Far less likely than evolution.

Remember that the Apes today are not your ancestors. You are both related to a single species of ape that lived a LONG time ago and probably doesnt anymore because it evolved into two seperate branches of creature depending on where it was forced to live, one for the jungle and one for the open plains where we evolved. THAT ape is related to all hominids alive today: all humans and all apes. He got the virus and as such EVERYONE descended from him got the virus. He might have been a particularly strong ape, one that was selected for in natural selection and as such bred a LOT. Because we are all his distant children we have the same virus's.

Also apes are very intelligent. They do "Stupid" animal stuff sometimes but that doesnt disprove evolution. Im not "proud" or "Ashamed" to say im related to them because it doesnt mean anything morally or ethically. Why should i care what an ape does just because we share a VERY distant ancestor. Thats like saying "Your distant relative in japan just ate some shit in 2 girls one cup DO YOU FEEL SHAME!" Of course not. The relation is so distant theres no reason to feel "tied" to them at all. It doesnt make their actions reflect badly on us. We are two very different animals that just evolved a LONG time ago from the same ancestor.

Evolution doesnt disprove god. As an atheist i can say that at one point in my life i accepted both. Many do. The bible doesnt have to be literal. In the context in which it was written it could be a parable about how god did things explained from the perspective of people with little scientific knowledge. You dont have to choose between "Literal" and "Fairytale" you could also have "Important message in the form of a metaphor". All equally valid.