Why do people reject evolution?

Gorrila_thinktank

New member
Dec 28, 2010
82
0
0
JoJo said:
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

New member
Apr 15, 2009
286
0
0
TheKasp said:
dslatch said:
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

New member
Apr 15, 2009
2,896
0
0
dslatch said:
TheKasp said:
dslatch said:
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.
 

Gorrila_thinktank

New member
Dec 28, 2010
82
0
0
dslatch said:
lwm3398 said:
dslatch said:
TheKasp said:
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

New member
Apr 15, 2009
286
0
0
Gorrila_thinktank said:
dslatch said:
lwm3398 said:
dslatch said:
TheKasp said:
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

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
2,940
658
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
kgpspyguy said:
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

New member
May 22, 2010
255
0
0
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

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Gorrila_thinktank said:
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 :D 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

New member
Sep 21, 2009
3,949
0
0
dslatch said:
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.

Gorrila_thinktank said:
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

New member
Jan 3, 2010
200
0
0
Quaxar said:
Monster_user said:
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

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
671
0
21
Zachary Amaranth said:
wulf3n said:
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.
 

dslatch

New member
Apr 15, 2009
286
0
0
Dijkstra said:
dslatch said:
TheKasp said:
dslatch said:
Snap
Snippity
Beliefs can be wrong, so he's quite right. There is nothing magical about belief and faith that means they cannot be wrong.
I never said they couldn't be wrong. What I meant by 'Its no skin off your dick' is it aint your problem, and there is no point in trying to fix their 'problem' of ignorance(I hear that shit is bliss).
 

blazearmoru

New member
Sep 26, 2010
233
0
0
DJjaffacake said:
People don't like having to think, which is what understanding evolution requires.
I disagree. Evolution is pretty simple and in fact more simple than having to make up excuses about reality when reality differs from doctrine. The problem isn't with wanting to think or not, it's with group mentality, egotism and other such silly things. Although I can't say this for all religions, most religions have never been about the truth but rather been the claim to be the truth. If you dissect this fact then you know that religion isn't about wanting to understand truth (faith vs fact), it's about wanting to get your way(I know what god wants, and god wants what I want). =]
 

DiamanteGeeza

New member
Jun 25, 2010
240
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
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.
You are clearly far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am (or most other people commenting, I suspect), and I just wanted to say thank you for that retrovirus explanation. Utterly fascinating!

(My captcha was about the Shingles virus. How wonderfully ironic.)
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
Gorrila_thinktank said:
A better question is, WHY SHOULD I ACCEPT EVOLUTION?
Because we have literally tons of evidence. And I mean "literally"--I know people like to use that word to mean "figuratively, but with emphasis", but I'm being completely serious. If you gathered all the evidence for evolution in one place and dropped it on one of those weigh stations they use for trucks, it would completely destroy the scale. And that's without the mountains.

Or more to the point, why should I accept what you have to say on the matter?
You shouldn't. And you don't have to. With all that evidence (spanning multiple scientific fields, all of which believe their evidence is the most compelling) there's absolutely no reason to take anyone's word for it. And a lot of the evidence isn't difficult to come by (just consider where dogs came from, for example).

You don't need to take anyone's word that evolution is true. The evidence more than stands up on it's own if you're willing to honestly examine it.

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.
The arguments of some evolutionary supporters could harm you. Evolution itself, on the other hand, could save your life. It's an integral part of modern medicine. Understanding how viruses and bacteria evolve is crucial to fighting diseases like the flu or HIV. So hate the jerks yelling at you because of the theory, but don't hate the theory, is what I'm saying.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
wulf3n said:
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.
Actually, you made a potentially hypothetical statement:

you just say they're wrong and must believe in creationism rather than you know provide evidence or admit that the theory of evolution doesn't answer 100% of it's questions.
So I answered:

But I'll play along. What questions doesn't evolution answer?
At that point, you answered with the current line of talk. Now you're changing your story. Dude, seriously, don't try and change your argument when one can simply follow the links back.

You're assuming my intention is to somehow debunk evolution, rather than me simply having a question regarding evolution.
The only thing I'm really assuming at this point is that you're sticking to the same points you've been making, rather than trying to change things mid-stream. This does appear to be a faulty assumption, though,.

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?
See, you're not directly stating that I've said anything of the sort, but you're using it as a counterweight to the notion that I'm putting words in your mouth. That's dishonest, and you're essentially propping up your claim that I'm putting words in yuor mouth by putting words in my mouth.

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 yet, the reason you accused me of calling you a creationist was your sentiment that you didn't believe or disbelieve. I made an ICP reference, you went on a tirade about us evolutionists, you claimed you weren't talking about me specifically, and here we are.

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.
I did neither of the above.

I asked you what evolution didn't answer. You gave an example. I asked why that example would be an issue. You instead of answering affirmatively, tried to give a contrived example of what you meant, with no regard as to any real reason it wouldn't work.

You had ample opportunities to say something like "it doesn't make sense to me," or "I don't know." But you were asked what it didn't explain, and you gave this example. Not "what don't you understand," but "what doesn't this explain?"

I let you slide a few earlier times on shifting your argument, but now you're trying to change the crux.