Why do people reject evolution?

[Palademon]

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.

 

[TehCookie]

I think this belongs in Religion and Politics

That's the problem.

Evolution theory is a SCIENCE. It should not be relegated to 'Religion and Politics' because it is neither religious, nor political.

The ONLY reason it would go there is because Anti-Evolution proponents do so for religious reasons and use politics as their vehicle to do so.

You're the third person who said that already, at least say something new.

 

[Tanis]

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

 

[GildaTheGriffin]

Ok, Mister Biology. Fossils tell you absolutely nothing about about genetic structures! How do you even tell me such things, even to when fossils are nothing more than a skeleton's imprints. You should be pointing towards how cellular structures react to different... stimuli. If evolution is a thing, then it has to have a stimulation to change of how it reacts to that certain environment or certain degree in change.

Don't tell me anything more about mutation unless you got evidence of such. Because in truth, I was also someone who loved biology in school and learned all I could during my time, but truth is... their is really no evidence.

Sure :3

Im not really sure what youre asking in the first part? Sorry but it seems like english isnt your first language and im trying to understand. Also im extremely tired. The fossils show us that slowly some creatures died out and very similar creatures took their place, a sort of transitional phase is shown where skeletons of creatures between two organisms have been found many times. Many "Missing links" if you will. It clearly shows how an organism changed slowly over time in shape and size.

Ok this is quite complicated so ill try and make it less... technical ok? Here is some DNA proof. There is a virus known as "Endogenous retroviruses". When it infects you it injects its DNA into your cells and that DNA sits in your cells forever. When you have kids those kids will have that viral DNA too. It isnt infectious by touch or anything, its just a left over from when you were infected, the non functional virus DNA if you want thats just lying around after it did its job. This DNA doesnt always stick around but when it does its forever, as in millions of years. This event is EXTREMELY rare where it sticks around because for it to be passed on two things need to happen:

1. It needs to be a virus that succeeds in getting its DNA in your cells and the DNA isnt destroyed in defense by your cells.

2. Im gonna be blunt. You need to get infected in the cells that make your sperm. You need a ball infection.

So the chances of this happening are extremely rare. In the whole of human evolution this has happened 7 times in about 3 million years ish.

So when we find two species with EXACTLY the same bit of virus DNA left hanging around its a good indicator they had a common ancestor which was infected by a virus.

The virus DNA can be sequenced to check if its the exact same. As a matter of fact there are 7 lengths of separate virus DNA in our cells all from different virus's that infected our ancestor millions of years ago. Apes that are close to us have these 7 lengths of the exact same virus DNA too. This is not something we have ever found between species that are not related very much at all. It shows that in our past the same 7 virus's infected our ancestor. The chance of having our past ancestors from both apes and humans be infected and injected with the VERY rare DNA from the EXACT same virus's is VERY small. As such we assume they shared a distant ancestor. I hope that makes sense.

MRSA is total proof of mutation. Of how it functions and works. Like i said you can sequence the DNA of a bacteria that descended from another bacteria, so it should be genetically identical, but it has different DNA! Because a mutation occured. Ive physically done this. I cant speak for you but i know it happens. The evidence is plentiful

MRSA is a bacteria that previously could be killed with anti biotics. We treated it with anti biotics whenever we saw it until one day it stopped working. When we searched in depth we found the anti biotic we used to use didnt kill MRSA anymoreat all. A few MRSA bacteria had mutated to become resistant, survived our anti biotic treatment, and then bred to produce an entire population of anti biotic resistant bacteria. If you take some of almost any bacteria and keep killing the population eventually some will survive. They survived because they have the mutation to be resistant to the anti biotic. They then breed and make a large amount of resistant bacteria.

I hope that helped. Im barely spelling anymore... im going to get some sleep. Ill try and be helpful. Also im not evil... just for the record. I have nothing but respect and love for everyone that i interact with... i dont like the idea of someone assuming im evil just because i dont believe in god :C i try and be the best person i can be. Tired me is rather irrational...

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?

 

[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.