Why do people reject evolution?

[Vigormortis]

I was not talking about your video at all.I agree with you.Btw-Extreme examples are still examples. This is the video that is nonsense:

{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaDOkMEK4uk}
Did emded it right?

An athiest has a lack of belief/faith in gods.
That does not exclude someone from making an argument as to why they could think their is a god or what the definition of one might actually be.

Yeah, someone pointed out the bits of the prior conversation that showed you were talking about a different video. I had only seen your last post, and the video embeded within, so I was under the impression you were calling that video nonsense.

The post had confused me. My mistake; apologies.

However, an atheist is defined as - "one who believes that there is no deity". When you said, "...I think there is a god-like-thing.", it sort of precludes the possibility of you being an atheist. It's probably more appropriate to say you're a theist.

Unless you meant Agnostic or something similar.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

On a side note, after watching the intended video, all I can say is:

Holy hell was that a collection of bullshit on top of bullshit. I've listened to conspiracy nuts; the kind that believe aliens built the pyramids and that there's a race of reptilian-mole-men living under our cities; whose rants made more sense than that video.

From minute one it was nothing but meta-physics, pseudo-"science", misleading allegories, and out-right lies.

I couldn't sit through much more than a half an hour. If I missed something "profound" after that 30-minute mark, or the random spots I skipped to, then so be it. I will NOT be watching that drivel again.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

One final thing, and then I promise I'll shut up. This is the embed code for the Escapist Forum (for youtube) -

[+youtube=********]

Just remove the plus sign and replace the asterisks with the URL code for the video you want to embed. So, in the case of your video, it would be IaDOkMEK4uk.

It's usually the string of random numbers and letters just after the watch?v= in the URL bar.

 

[Quaxar]

According to the geneology of the Isrealites/Jews, in the Bible (and presumably the Torah), they can trace their heritage back to Adam and Eve.

But that's just silly. If Adam and Eve were the first and only two people of whom humanity descends then EVERYBODY must logically be able to trace their heritage back to them. Even more so if you consider the mathematics behind genealogy where even going back to the 13th century everybody must statistically be related to Charlemagne.
<youtube=e3sTzLXtojo>

And I won't even go into why the whole notion of "biblical evidence" is dishonest and unscientific.

on a side note why do people start these threads they ALWAYS end in flame wars...

This isn't /b/, we do have moderational supervision. I also find posts tend to go more towards the flame side when a) people don't even read the thread or try to argue anything but simply see the topic and think they are original for posting anti-religious one liners on the tenth page or b) discussion value goes down for a lack of opposing viewpoints.

 

[Eekaida]

My ancestors weren't monkeys ok, is that what you want to teach your kids? Bring your child to the zoo and bring them to the chimps and points to them then say' Look its your gradparents wave hello and give them a kiss."? No! That is not right we come from the bible like God says Adam and Eve not Davey and Steve and there was a snake.
So I say to you look in your heart and see that God made you and he made you very special and you are not made from monkeys.

This, unless you were being ironic. Or a troll.

I believe in what I believe. But I believe it's fucking stupid to think that we just "evolved" to get to where we are from some species that was similar to us. Talk about down right depressing. This means, that we all don't matter, not one soul in the world matters. We are nothing. Fuck that.

I understand how evolution works. But I don't deny the presence of a higher power. Apparently it's impossible to understand or believe both.

And the countdown to Quotes that say "You're stupid for believing in religion, blah blah blah!" come up......

I accept what you believe, and I won't call you stupid (who's shocked?), but I will post you this question - why the need to 'matter'? Why the need to be 'special' or 'important'? And is this really the sole preserve of religion? When you think of the mathematical probability of you existing at all - the number of your mothers eggs, fathers sperm, that they exist at all, that there is life on this planet, out of the thousands of planets in the universe etc etc. Isn't that chance amazing enough? Is it really rendered less amazing for lack of some eternal author pulling the strings?

OT: Never personally met anyone who denies evolution. It seems odd to me.

 

[Something Amyss]

According to google "Fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow"

Yes, now do you understand it?

If there were 100 couples, 1 with a mutation that isn't beneficial yet, but may be in the future.
If each couple gave birth to 3 offspring we now have 297 entities without the mutation and 3 with. With each new generation the number without the mutation grows faster than those with the mutation. Sure it's still there but it's prominence within the species diminishes with each new generation.

Again, using single instances (unlikely) and assuming both complete lack of beneficial status and a static "mutation."

So what you're saying is, if you incredibly contrive an unlikely circumstance and assume linear math where it does not apply, things look bad.

You're asking me to defend why natural selection and evolution "fail to explain" something that doesn't happen in nature as you describe it happening in nature as you describe it. Doesn't this seem a little dishonest to you? If not, would it not benefit you to do some research on genetics and heredity before calling it a wash?

It seemed obvious to me, I'll endeavour to be more specific in the future.

Or you could be more sincere, which would have the greater effect.

 

[wulf3n]

You're asking me to defend why natural selection and evolution "fail to explain" something that doesn't happen in nature as you describe it happening in nature as you describe it.

Now how's putting words in peoples mouths. I never said evolution "failed to explain" this, It was just something I didn't understand about evolution.

And yet, as soon as someone questions said theory or asks for evidence, you just say they're wrong

Doesn't this seem a little dishonest to you?

You're assuming my intention is to somehow debunk evolution, rather than me simply having a question regarding evolution.

If not, would it not benefit you to do some research on genetics and heredity before calling it a wash?

A saying about glass houses keeps coming to mind right now. You just spent several posts telling me not to claim you've said something you haven't then go right into claiming I've said things I haven't.

When did I ever say evolution is wash? or anything of that ilk?

If you've read some of my posts not pertaining to our conversation you'd see that I accept evolution as the best explanation we have, my "questions" simply stem from me not knowing everything about evolution, and the principle that all theories get proven wrong eventually by stronger theories.

And now we get back to the initial argument all those pages ago. Once again i've simply asked a question, and instead of answering it, you've just said I'm doing it wrong, and implied some devious scheme to undermine evolution.

Thankfully others have answered the question.

 

[kgpspyguy]

Because its a ridiculous theory, The idea that even one symbiotic relationship could come about from pure chance is absurd much less a planet that's made of them, as well as the fact that its own creator didn't believe in it by the time that he died.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

As well as the fact that its own creator didn't believe in it by the time that he died.

This is just plain untrue. Its fine to not want to accept evolution but dont say things that are totally untrue please :3 Darwin never abandoned his own theory before death. Even answers in Genesis admits that the "doubtful darwin" argument is totally hollow and fallacious.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/14/darwin-and-the-eye

Aside from that the point of natural selection is that symbiotic relationships are not down to chance. They are naturally selected for! Nature favors them ergo when one arises it usually out competes those that have not become symbiotic. Its not like the entire planet all happened to evolve symbiosis at the same time, every single species separately because that IS abusrd Life traces back to a single instance of symbiosis that then branched out to become every multi-cellular species today.

If you have any more questions about the theory or why you think its ridiculous ill be happy to answer them for you :3 This applies to new posters too.

Your friendly neighborhood biologist :3 Chris

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Much like all the people who don't see video games as art, people who don't believe in (or as I like to say "understand") evolution are old and will die and we will live in a world where we won't have threads like this

 

[Gorrila_thinktank]

We humans are prone to confirmation bias and that includes all of us, even those who consider themselves scientific or logical. Think about what happens whenever a study is produced that has a bearing on a controversial political position: those whose position's it will support will wave it triumphantly in their opponent's face whereas those whose position's it doesn't support will point out every issue or possible source of bias, or simply dismiss it as one study.

Considering this, it's easy to see how if a person bases their entire morality and world view around a single doctrine, in this case the bible, that it's very easy for them to dismiss even overwhelming evidence to the contrary as a conspiracy or flawed rather than change their world view. Add to that a "them vs us" mentality and people can easily get entrenched in their views, you see the same with AIDS or climate change deniers, or adherents to long ago failed political ideologies.

I agree, by the same virtue we see some adherents to a view of scientific authoritarianism going this rout, and while no one has muttered the words yet the rhetoric that is directed towards dissenting parties speaks of Noocracy or Geniocracy.

OP, your question was why people reject evolution. The way you have chosen to articulate your post communicates to me a statement and judgment of these people.

A better question is, WHY SHOULD I ACCEPT EVOLUTION?

Or more to the point, why should I accept what you have to say on the matter?

No matter how well you think you can articulate your point, no matter how much time you spend explaining it, no matter how sincerely you believe in your argument some people will not agree with you. I learned this a few years ago working a summer job at restaurant. It took me the whole summer of frying tortillas but I finally understood.

On a personal level I reject evolution (but more specifically your evolutionary world view) because anytime I have encountered its supporters I have felt belittled and attacked. I cannot accept your statement because I naturally shy away from things that could harm me.

 

[dslatch]

The reason some people don't believe in it is because simply they choose not to. or they accepted another theory that they prefer or that makes more sense to them. it does not effect any of you people calling them brainless idiots and the like. Some people don't like Metallica, does that make them wrong no. That does not mean i can't respectfully disagree and move on without insulting.

on a side note why do people start these threads they ALWAYS end in flame wars...

You are comparing the preference in music (something subjective) with people refusing to accept an objective truth... Not only refusing to accept but actually lie and try to put beliefs and fairytails on the same level as the theory of evolution (if you know what a scientific theory is you can only assume the people are idiots).

I respect your theory, but I politely disagree.

The word belief is a common one in these debates, all it comes down to is belief and faith. You have faith in your opinion, others have faith in theirs. There is no point in attempting to sway them. People choose what they want to believe. As in if they do not like to listen to your theorys and facts, it's really no skin off your dick.

 

[lwm3398]

The reason some people don't believe in it is because simply they choose not to. or they accepted another theory that they prefer or that makes more sense to them. it does not effect any of you people calling them brainless idiots and the like. Some people don't like Metallica, does that make them wrong no. That does not mean i can't respectfully disagree and move on without insulting.

on a side note why do people start these threads they ALWAYS end in flame wars...

You are comparing the preference in music (something subjective) with people refusing to accept an objective truth... Not only refusing to accept but actually lie and try to put beliefs and fairytails on the same level as the theory of evolution (if you know what a scientific theory is you can only assume the people are idiots).

I respect your theory, but I politely disagree.

The word belief is a common one in these debates, all it comes down to is belief and faith. You have faith in your opinion, others have faith in theirs. There is no point in attempting to sway them. People choose what they want to believe. As in if they do not like to listen to your theorys and facts, it's really no skin off your dick.

An opinion based on objective truths is more valid than an opinion based on faith. This is basic rhetoric here; when your argument has objective support, it's a good argument.

Faith is not as valid as fact.

 

[dslatch]

Snip

Snippity

snap

It doesn't have to be fact, it's faith.

 

[Gorrila_thinktank]

Snip

Snippity

snap

It doesn't have to be fact, it's faith.

do we not place our Faith in fact then? and at which point does one then generate the other? for if we place our faith in fact we peruse facts that support our faith. mmhhh.... a question for scholars, sages and sociopaths.

Captcha: Skynet watches----> really? you've heard about our lord and savoir as well?

 

[dslatch]

Snip

Snippity

snap

It doesn't have to be fact, it's faith.

do we not place our Faith in fact then? and at which point does one then generate the other? for if we place our faith in fact we peruse facts that support our faith. mmhhh.... a question for scholars, sages and sociopaths.

Captcha: Skynet watches----> really? you've heard about our lord and savoir as well?

That's when we roll into the world of belief in the facts. For a lesson in that watch CNN politics for 20 minutes.

Also props on the username.

 

[Asita]

Because its a ridiculous theory, The idea that even one symbiotic relationship could come about from pure chance is absurd much less a planet that's made of them, as well as the fact that its own creator didn't believe in it by the time that he died.

Well first of all, Darwin's supposed 'recanting' is a well known myth, which even creationist sites like Answers in Genesis disavow. And ultimately would be utterly irrelevant even if it were true. Science doesn't operate on Appeal to Authority, it operates based on whether or not a model adequately explains the data. Furthermore, it's worth noting that science has this little tendency to adapt to new data, and evolutonary theory is certainly no exception, with perhaps the most famous addition to it being courtesy of Gregor Mendel's study of genetics.

Additionally, I feel obliged to point out that the idea is far from ridiculous. The base concept has been used in animal breeding and horticulture for millenia now, with one of the most obvious examples in terms of diversification being dogs. As a case in point: Compare the skeleton of a Great dane with that of a chihuahua.. Or if you prefer, with a bulldog skeleton.

And while I have to give you points for originality (I've never seen a person use the symbiosis angle before), at its core it is effectively nothing but a variant of the old claim of Irreducible Complexity, for which I refer you to the following video for an analysis of its flaws. If you lack the time for the full video, I would reccomend at least seeing the bit around 6 minutes in about the arch analogy. The same principle applies, and the idea of symbiosis being outlandish rings more than a little hollow when one considers that there are various stages of symbiotic relationships visible in the natural world, including commensalist relationships (one organism benefits, the other is unaffected) and parasitic ones (one benefits at the other's expense).

 

[Dascylus]

People are free to believe what they wish. It's a freedom civilisation has granted most of us.

But belief isn't truth...

You know what, I don't care. The short of it is that those that disagree with evolution generally also oppose scientific advancement in some way.

Every day you delay the cure for cancer, aids, autism, parkinsons or the very long list of terrifying ways to see someone die because the science behind it doesn't sit right with your faith, YOUR faith and not mine, then that is one more day I have to see it happen.

But this isn't science versus religion. Science doesn't seek to disprove god but has consistently provided answers that make his existence less and less believable.
Religion makes up creative stories to explain why science is wrong but provides no true evidence.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

A better question is, WHY SHOULD I ACCEPT EVOLUTION?

On a personal level I reject evolution (but more specifically your evolutionary world view) because anytime I have encountered its supporters I have felt belittled and attacked. I cannot accept your statement because I naturally shy away from things that could harm me.

Well thats a shame :C . I REALLY wanna share my biology with everyone who is interested or wants to know more. I have a few fun things as reasons with evidence why to accept evolution that id be happy to share if you so wish :3 Over PM or here in the thread.

I also really wanna answer the question you asked last time about how the eye evolved. I actually know precisely how we observe the eye in different stages and how each one can link to the next to be more beneficial :3 If you want i can totally share that with you The thing about science is that it shouldnt make you feel any emotion about its theories. They describe reality. You shouldnt be attatched to them on a personal level. You can definitely admire their beauty but to claw and clutch at them makes them seem more like faith: something based on emotion rather than rational facts.

Anyway if you want a calm and friendly discourse on the subject id be happy to answer the questions :3

 

[Quaxar]

It doesn't have to be fact, it's faith.

Of course faith doesn't need to have facts, I think the most issues come if you knowingly contort facts and manipulate experiments to reach supportive evidence that concedes that faith like countless creation-"scientists" are known to do.
And even more issues come if you try to advocate that false support for your faith in educational facilities outside of the appropriate subject. Everyone actually pushing to have Intelligent Design taught in biology classes as rival "theory" should surely be alright if we put alternate theories to their faith in their religious classes, otherwise it's a colossally hypocritical view.

On a personal level I reject evolution (but more specifically your evolutionary world view) because anytime I have encountered its supporters I have felt belittled and attacked. I cannot accept your statement because I naturally shy away from things that could harm me.

What's an "evolutionary world view"?
I'm sorry if you've been attacked for your stance but please don't forget that the other side is very good at attacks too. Just because someone is very passionate or agressive doesn't make a point any more valid or moot.
And the last sentence I think I do not understand, are you saying evolution is possibly harmful to you or are you saying you don't like a scientific theory because you've been personally attacked?

 

[Monster_user]

According to the geneology of the Isrealites/Jews, in the Bible (and presumably the Torah), they can trace their heritage back to Adam and Eve.

But that's just silly. If Adam and Eve were the first and only two people of whom humanity descends then EVERYBODY must logically be able to trace their heritage back to them. Even more so if you consider the mathematics behind genealogy where even going back to the 13th century everybody must statistically be related to Charlemagne.

I'm confused as to what your trying to argue.

My point was that because the lineage recorded in the Bible was so short, it does not allow for more than 20,000 years. Thus for a literalist interpration by a believer, the Earth could not not be more than 20,000 years.

 

[medv4380]

According to google "Fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow"

Yes, now do you understand it?

If there were 100 couples, 1 with a mutation that isn't beneficial yet, but may be in the future.
If each couple gave birth to 3 offspring we now have 297 entities without the mutation and 3 with. With each new generation the number without the mutation grows faster than those with the mutation. Sure it's still there but it's prominence within the species diminishes with each new generation.

Again, using single instances (unlikely) and assuming both complete lack of beneficial status and a static "mutation."

So what you're saying is, if you incredibly contrive an unlikely circumstance and assume linear math where it does not apply, things look bad.

Snip

You're both wrong. One if failing to acknowledge the problem being presented, and the other is failing to explain what the problem actually is.

Here is what the problem is.

You have a Gene Pool of 26 individuals.
Each Generation is only of 26 individuals.
Every 100 individuals there is a chance for 1 mutations.

What occurs is that you get a gene pool that is 99.9% the same, in short order. The only way a mutation makes any progress is that if it has a benefit. If it has no effect or is dangerous it is weeded out in a few generations.

Why is simple. Each individual has only 50% of the parent DNA in sexual reproduction. The mutation only has 2 chances to go to the next generation, and each chance is only a 50/50 chance. It only has a 25% chance of gaining any ground, and until it exceeds a presence of (13)50% of the individuals in a generation it will always have a good chance of being over written. This is why we are 99% the same as a species, and higher in a given gene pool.

However, the question is "How do these non-deleterious mutations propagate?".

The answer lies within how Gene Pools are grouped together. For humans I believe an individuals gene pool is 25 miles from where they were born. Which is a lot of gene pools. Each gene pool ends up with its own collection of DNA that does nothing, but there are plenty of individuals that migrate out of that gene pool. That injects their set of useless dna into the a new group for a period of time allowing for diversity in non-coding dna, and a higher chance of it matching up and being useful or dangerous.

I only know this because I work with Genetic Algorithms. If I have only 1 gene pool with no migration then that pool of individuals becomes horribly inbreed, and makes very slow progress. The more pools I have with a slow but steady migration the non-coding dna stays diverse, I get faster progress, and is more like a living ecosystem. It also works better on multi-core machines.