Why do people reject evolution?

[Asita]

I say that Macroevolution is "theoreitcally" possible in regards to huge change which could happen without the need for long periods of time and many minute mutations... it's just highly unlikely. This is coming from the original comments line about frogs growing 7 legs as result of exposure to a toxic environment. While in that case the frogs are liable to die off, it is very much possible, though highly improbable, that such a significant change in a short space of time could be ultimately beneficial. Heck, plants have been used to observe speciation in a single generation, which means that Macroevolution can happen, though I haven't found records of how successful these knew species are over their parent species which makes it difficult to class as an evolutionary leap... just a drastic mutation.

...Hate to break it to you, but that characterization of 'macroevolution' is hardly what the term means. Quite literally, by scientific standards macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over many generations. Personally, I think the old paintbucket analogy works very well for this, but I think this image works just as well.

To reinterate what the image said, every minute change in color could be considered a microevolutionary change, whereas the process of changing from red to purple and then purple to blue (or red to blue, if you prefer) is best equated to macroevolution.

What you refer to is closer to 'punctuated equilibrium' than macroevolution, but even then the timescale seems...well, hollywood-esque for most intents and purposes.

 

[AMMO Kid]

Science vs. Religion: Who wins?
My take: Whoever got there first. Your strongest childhood role models and environment dictate your belief system.

I grew up in a happy and mostly agnostic household, so I side mostly with science. Evolution is my pick over Divine Hand. But, I can certainly understand how a person raised in a happy religious home would embrace religion. They have faith in something greater that I will never possess. Evolution is in the margins for them. I work with some very religious engineers (which seems odd to me). They each have a personally-modified belief system which fits their experience and upbringing. Everything ranging from "all fossils are faked" to "evolution is real, but there was Divine Intervention to create man in the first place".

This really isn't a battle against science and religion at all. The majority of Christians outside of America's Bible belt have no overall problem with the idea of evolution. In fact, the greatest Christian theologians of all time would have had no beef with evolution either. Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin (to name a few) all had interpretations of Genesis that allowed for evolution LONG before evolution was even discovered. The interpretation of the Bible that outright demanded 6 connected days of creation really only popped up in the early 1960s with the book "The Genesis Flood" by Morris and Whitcomb.

 

[Nimzabaat]

This is my view on the world:

In regards to creationists, I find that a lot of people who tend to believe in creationism don't fully understand the science behind the theory since they're just spouting facts that other men studied, researched, and theorized, thus it kind of grates me when they smugly laugh at anyone who thinks differently despite the fact that they're just repeating what other people have told them is true.

In regards to evolutionists, I find that a lot of people who tend to believe in evolution don't fully understand the science behind the theory since they're just spouting facts that other men studied, researched, and theorized, thus it kind of grates me when they smugly laugh at anyone who thinks differently despite the fact that they're just repeating what other people have told them is true.

In short, I don't make a habit of smugly laughing at other people when I know that nothing in science is truly concrete. History has shown time and time again that we think we know everything when in truth we know nothing.

Agreed. Sadly the voice of reason gets drowned out by "my old guy and his book is smarter than your old guy and his book so waaah!."

 

[Bifford]

I accept evolution for the same reason religious types reject it: I've been raised on it and accept it pretty much on faith. If I wanted to truly understand evolution (theory and evidence) I'd have to study biology at college for three years. Yes, the basic summary has a compelling logic, but so does the basic tenets of religions. I stand with evolution simply because I've had a very secular upbringing.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

People make decisions primarily on emotions, not on logic. That goes for everyone that accepts and rejects evolution. I'd say the major problem with convincing critics is really left with the evolutionist side though. The Young Earthers have pointed out a lot of problems in several areas of the evolutionary theory, but for some reason evolutionary biologists don't even bother to listen to their complaints. I think it probably has something to do with the sense of "we're smart, they're dumb" stupidity that I'm even seeing in a lot of these posts. Evolution isn't some "obvious" fact that just "everyone with a brain" should be able to see. Your upbringing has a lot to do with it. I can't remember where I got the figure but apparently upwards of 44% of Americans have beef with the current evolutionary model. But anyway, rather than accept and critique problems that will evolve the evolutionary theory, it seems that evolutionary fundamentalists (if you will) just want to sit back and laugh at the "stupidity" of Young Earthers. I hope the next generation of evolutionary biologists are more flexible and open to criticism.

I have actually seen people address young earth arguments such as here:


In fact I've seen Evolutionists address creationist claims many times. Creationism has even had it's day in court (and you can find a documentary about it on youtube). The reason evolutionists tend to laugh at them is they constantly repeat arguments that have been shot down multiple times. They don't believe in evolution not because they have a valid argument against it but because they don't want to. You can't argue with someone when they've got their ears plugged or, to quote Richard Dawkins: "I wouldn't debate a creationist for the same reason I wouldn't debate someone who still believes the earth is flat".

captcha: live transmission.

 

[Quaxar]

Anyone who has done more in depth studying may be able to answer a question for me though. Are apes our only living relative or just our closest? I'm just curious when apes shared a common ancestor with a fish or a dolphin, if the current model is as flawless as some say it is it should work the same all the way back to the origin of all life. Or does it only provide a link a link between man and ape? Which is just a sliver of our evolutionary history.

EVERYTHING is a living relative if you want to get technical. But they certainly are closest in terms of evolutionary nearest. Let me illustrate that with the classic tree of life.
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/primate_family_tree.gif
I like that one. It's colourful.
It's only the primate order but you can more or less go back to bigger and bigger graphs if you want broader ancestry. Keep in mind though that you might find different illustrations in parts because some people tend to put classifications together differently.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

People make decisions primarily on emotions, not on logic. That goes for everyone that accepts and rejects evolution. I'd say the major problem with convincing critics is really left with the evolutionist side though. The Young Earthers have pointed out a lot of problems in several areas of the evolutionary theory, but for some reason evolutionary biologists don't even bother to listen to their complaints. I think it probably has something to do with the sense of "we're smart, they're dumb" stupidity that I'm even seeing in a lot of these posts. Evolution isn't some "obvious" fact that just "everyone with a brain" should be able to see. Your upbringing has a lot to do with it. I can't remember where I got the figure but apparently upwards of 44% of Americans have beef with the current evolutionary model. But anyway, rather than accept and critique problems that will evolve the evolutionary theory, it seems that evolutionary fundamentalists (if you will), just want to sit back and laugh at the "stupidity" of Young Earthers. I hope the next generation of evolutionary biologists are more flexible and open to criticism.

Actually no Young Earthers haven't pointed out problems in areas of the evolutionary theory. They have pointed out misconceptions and lies. Biologists are actually very flexible and open to criticism, but they do require evidence to back up these criticisms just like any other branch of science.

It's not that Young Earthers as you put them just have a problem with evolution. They have a problem with Geology, Astrophysics, Physics, Paleontology, Chemistry, Cosmology, Astronomy, Biology in general. Even dendrochronology (tree ring dating) says the world is at least 11,000 years old.

What they do however is group all these sciences together and call it evolution so they don't look, well stupid. You should watch this video.

 

[Gennadios]

It's pretty simple, the impression I got from High School is that those people simply didn't understand it.

I'd partially blame the teachers, it's a pretty simple mechanism but it was never explained clearly, you just have to read multiple sources and fit the pieces yourself.

 

[PrototypeC]

This is my view on the world:
In regards to creationists AND evolutionists, I find that a lot of people who tend to believe in creationism/evolutionism don't fully understand the science behind the theory since they're just spouting facts that other men studied, researched, and theorized, thus it kind of grates me when they smugly laugh at anyone who thinks differently despite the fact that they're just repeating what other people have told them is true.

In short, I don't make a habit of smugly laughing at other people when I know that nothing in science is truly concrete. History has shown time and time again that we think we know everything when in truth we know nothing.

While it's true that, for all the knowledge that we can even IMAGINE knowing we're still less than 1% into that, I would say that I have a strong belief in evolution.

Now, the reason I say "belief" is because I haven't studied evolution on my own. I haven't seen the charts, the bone comparisons, the locations of their findings and I certainly have no ability in science or biology. In short, I don't know the first thing about evolution. When I go out and read the books, trace Darwin and his fellows' discoveries to reach the sensible conclusion, then I can tie up all that data I've obtained and use it to back up my claims. I plan to do this, and I'm confident that my belief will be more than sufficiently proven. Until then, though, I'm not going to comment on evolution as a debate except to admit I know nothing.

Then again, others who know nothing about evolution seem to have a lot to say about it, don't they?

 

[funkzillabot]

Question:
"Why do people reject evolution?"

Answer:
- Because they are stupid. (Ignorance is Bliss.)
- Because they are lazy. (Science takes work and time. Reading does too.)
- Because they WANT too. (It's easier to believe that "god" did it, then to find out the answers for yourself.)


*People do things for a many reasons, and the reasons are always simple.*

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

While it's true that, for all the knowledge that we can even IMAGINE knowing we're still less than 1% into that, I would say that I have a strong belief in evolution.

Now, the reason I say "belief" is because I haven't studied evolution on my own. I haven't seen the charts, the bone comparisons, the locations of their findings and I certainly have no ability in science or biology. In short, I don't know the first thing about evolution. When I go out and read the books, trace Darwin and his fellows' discoveries to reach the sensible conclusion, then I can tie up all that data I've obtained and use it to back up my claims. I plan to do this, and I'm confident that my belief will be more than sufficiently proven. Until then, though, I'm not going to comment on evolution as a debate except to admit I know nothing.

Then again, others who know nothing about evolution seem to have a lot to say about it, don't they?

Having a strong belief in something is a great thing, and your security in your own opinion shows a mature and reasonable understanding as well as your willingness to research and learn despite your admitted lack of knowledge. I certainly would never classify your or my lack of such scientific education as shear laziness or stupidity, which is what I was mainly addressing considering it seems there are many here who are far to eager to do so despite themselves not fully understanding the science they preach.

In my personal opinion, the greatest and surest proof of maturity and wisdom comes in the form of an intelligent and experienced mind that, despite any number of years of hard studying and education, accepts the possibility that they still may be wrong. Being secure in your opinion despite understanding this possibility shows an open mind and a wisdom beyond your years.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

There are a lot of evolution-deniers, but I doubt there is a single one of them with a PhD in Biology. And that should say enough imo.

Studying Medical Biology (or biomedical sciences w/e), I can see why all the detail might be to tough for someone not properly schooled in it to accept it.

 

[Product Placement]

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/primate_family_tree.gif
I like that one. It's colourful.

I also like that picture for an unrelated reason because I can point at it, while doing a "did you know...?" speech.

Did you know that all members of the Haplorhini family tree (those on the brown side) are unable to synthesize their own Vitamin C? Did you also know that the inability to produce your own Vitamin C is a relatively rare condition in the animal kingdom? Most mammals and in fact most animals in general make their own Vitamin C.

Now, most people understand that a lack of Vitamin C is generally a bad thing. Without this vitamin in your body, you would quickly develop a condition commonly known as scurvy and your body would start to break down. Do not expect to live much longer than three months of a complete Vitamin C free diet. It wouldn't be a very comfortable death, either.

Because of this, it's easy to assume that the reason the ability to make your own Vitamin C is so prevalent in the animal kingdom is simply because that when an animal was born without it, it usually died before passing its genes to the next generation.

However the Haplorhini diet is mainly fruits, which is rich in Vitamin C. This means that when an animal was born with this defect, it continued to live a normal healthy life and passed its genes down the line. In due time it became the dominant trait and eventually, all members of its species were lacking this ability.

Now, the Strepsirrhini (those on the red side) still have the ability to make their own Vitamin C, which tells us that this change occur after the two family tress branched off and before Tarsiers branched off from other Monkeys.

To make it absolutely clear; this condition is consistently present in all Haplorhines (including humans) and that Strepsirrhines are the only primates that can make their own Vitamin C.

Now, you can throw all the tantrums that you like about how your granpa wasn't a gibbon who married a gorilla and subsequently gave birth to humans but when you're dealing with facts like that we share 98-99% of our genetic material with other closely related primates and that we all share a relatively rare genetic disorder, compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, you have to at very least consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe there's something to this whole "evolution thingy".

 

[AwesomeWunderbar]

One of the strongest scientific theories to date, even stronger than the theory of Gravity

Gravity isn't a theory, it's a law.

Its both.

It might help if I cleared up a common misconception here.

A law denotes a fact of existence, a theory attempts to define why and/or how something works.

In other words, the law of gravity states that objects with mass are attracted to each other. The theory of gravity attempts to explain why this happens.

Right. Sorry bout that!

 

[Quaxar]

There are a lot of evolution-deniers, but I doubt there is a single one of them with a PhD in Biology. And that should say enough imo.

Oh come on, there's a whole <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_creationists>list of creationist with PhDs and other degrees. Not all in there are studied but you can take a pick between <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baumgardner>geophysicists, <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys>physicists, <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise>geologists, <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_White>chemists and I suppose everything else that I'm just too lazy to find examples of.
They may have the degrees but at least some of them can admit to their bias.
<quote=Kurt Wise>Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

EDIT: Apparently there's a whole list here but I'd advise you to only look at it cautiously because it's one of the biggest Young-Earth Creationist nutjob sites out there.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

They reject it for the same reason you accept it.

Because their world view is different than yours. As Descartes the famous logician pointed out, there is no metaphysical truth. At least none that he could prove, except that he existed as a thinking entity. Everything else is an extrapolation of what you think might be true. And there is almost never a case where two people have the same exact world view. The assumption that your's is always right is silly.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

One of the strongest scientific theories to date, even stronger than the theory of Gravity and there are still people out there that reject it.

OT: Yeah, I don't really understand how you can not believe in something with evidence but there we go, some folks are dumb. I personally just kind of blank it out, if they say evolution shouldn't be taught I'll bluntly say I disagree on the basis it's a theory that everyone should consider even if they are insisting on believing magic did it.

They reject it for the same reason you accept it.

Because their world view is different than yours. As Descartes the famous logician pointed out, there is no metaphysical truth. At least none that he could prove, except that he existed as a thinking entity. Everything else is an extrapolation of what you think might be true. And there is almost never a case where two people have the same exact world view. The assumption that your's is always right is silly.

Solipsism only proves that you, the individual are the only thing that exists (and in Descartes own shoe-horning, so does reason and for some inexplicable addition God because Reason = God or something, why does no-one ever remember he "proves" 3 things); so even arguing from that position is meaningless. As far as empiricism is concerned there's most definitely a truth and it's just what makes the most rational sense from the evidence (which Descartes at the very least would have approved of since it requires the use of reason).

For that matter, a world view does not affect evidence. Saying you don't 'believe' Gacey killed all those people does not make him innocent and your opinion, metaphysical as it may wish to be, does not change this.

As far as a counter-argument goes, solipsism and metaphysics to argue facts isn't the best.

 

[Timberwolf0924]

there are some main reasons I don't like the thought of evolution.

Main one being is how evolution, if true, screwed so many animals over.. I mean.. if the raptor did evolve into a chicken, what sense is that? From the apex predator down to that.. If we follow evolutions plans and what not it's more like de-evolution. I mean yea they've found different types of skulls and all that, but they also say that homo-saphien was a murdering bunch back when we were primal. maybe we just killed all that was there.

If we did come from monkies, why? Monkies are hella strong and smart and agile. Put a monkey hand to hand with a man, 90% of the time the man will get his face eaten. (I mean like chimps and such, not those little spider monkies that throw poop)

So instead of swinging through trees, living in family pods, and being free, we de-evolved into walking sacks of meat that are only as good as the tools we have. If it weren't for our ability to make weapons and tools, we'd be nothing compared to the animal kingdom..

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

there are some main reasons I don't like the thought of evolution.

Main one being is how evolution, if true, screwed so many animals over.. I mean.. if the raptor did evolve into a chicken, what sense is that? From the apex predator down to that.. If we follow evolutions plans and what not it's more like de-evolution. I mean yea they've found different types of skulls and all that, but they also say that homo-saphien was a murdering bunch back when we were primal. maybe we just killed all that was there.

If we did come from monkies, why? Monkies are hella strong and smart and agile. Put a monkey hand to hand with a man, 90% of the time the man will get his face eaten. (I mean like chimps and such, not those little spider monkies that throw poop)

So instead of swinging through trees, living in family pods, and being free, we de-evolved into walking sacks of meat that are only as good as the tools we have. If it weren't for our ability to make weapons and tools, we'd be nothing compared to the animal kingdom..

Its all about the conditions the creature is adapting to. Its easy to say "Creature X is BETTER than creature Y" but the truth is the ultrakill velociraptor 9000 that shoots lazors from its face and can summon jesus at will cant breathe underwater as well as the tiny sardine. In that case it would fail if the world become flooded. In the same way after the extinction event the velociraptor become more bird like to survive and adapt where previously reptiles could not. From there the birds moved around the globe to different environments. Some birds went to a place where the chicken would survive better than a talon-ed raptor. Some birds remain talon-ed raptors and are scary as hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68BPPVVpN7s

Apes didnt evolve into humans THEN discover tools. Some early neanderthals picked up tools and kept surviving JUST using their tools. Their HUGE arms and big clumsy crushing hands didnt have any use when a sharp club could defeat an unarmed ape with ease. They didnt need them. And as they moved from the trees to the plains to survive and grow their huge loping legs werent neccessary. As such we became leaner, more agile and more delicate to perform more complex tasks. Our intelligence and precision ARE an evolution. Of course then all other more evolved apes were clubbed to death by us because we filled the same niche. If youre going to say:

"If it weren't for our ability to make weapons and tools, we'd be nothing compared to the animal kingdom." You might as well say "If it weren't for the killer whales MASSIVE teeth it wouldnt be an apex predator". Intellect is our primary weapon.

There is no such thing as a "better" creature. All creatures adapt to fill a niche. The chicken filled the niche better than the raptor did.