Why do people reject evolution?

[Para199x]

No one (outside of single-forum crazies) actually reject evolution as a concept. The theory of evolution is the reason we have "superbugs", good and bad bacteria, dog breeds, etc.

Now, the idea of "Evolution Created All Life" is rejected by many, and it's not really without reason. Even ignoring incompatibility with personal religion, we still have fun dilemmas like abiogenesis crop up, mathematical improbability, the requirement for an infinite universe (in terms of time), and such. It's all grounds to be skeptical.

Now, obviously, one should at least attempt to research it further, but the massive (almost purposeful) misunderstanding between the two sides makes it difficult to find what you're looking for. Shame on everyone, really.

Actually when you factor in the number of planets and the age of the universe the probability of life happening randomly is almost 1. That it's highly improbable to happen on any one planet is neither here nor there, if it happened and spawned intelligence then that's where it is, the place is nowhere special.

 

[fwiffo]

Sorry I'm late to the thread but somebody already mentioned eyes right? I thought eyes were one thing evolution had trouble explaining.

btw I believe in evolution, just don't hear people mention eyes very often.

I've seen this claim quite frequently, but never seen any proof for the (so-called) difficulty in explaining them. We have examples of primitive eyes, and a developmental path from basically simple photoreceptors to the complex kind of vision humans have. What is this difficulty explaining eyes?

Just something I heard was difficult to explain. I was hoping people here had more information. Don't know anything about the evolution of eyes, unfortunately.

 

[fwiffo]

snip

Thanks for the information. Education ftw?

 

[Nimzabaat]

Absolute certainty - as in absolute absolute - is a notion that's completely useless and one that's better thrown right out of your head.

Evolution - change over time - is a fact as much as any other fact is a fact.

Thanks for tearing down your own argument, it saves me time. What bothers me about evolutionists is that their prophets (scientists) admit that evolution is a theory. They admit that at any moment they could stumble across a tablet saying "Mike, make sure to put some more dinosaur bones here - Gabe. PS make sure you clean up all these tables, the big guy doesn't want any found lol". They admit that, however unlikely, something could disprove the theory. Then you get their followers, who as soon as the theory is brought into question start screaming out "heretic!!!!". While I generally accept the theory of evolution, I can't get behind people who are so much more narrow-minded then their own prophets.

It boils down to two sides claiming that a small group of people have lied/misled a larger group of people about how life came to be. Neither side wants to admit that it could be their small group though.

Do you realize that what I said there concerned the reality of the genetic structure of living organisms changing, not the explanation for it? Do you know the definition of a scientific theory? Scientists are prophets? Can you provide me with cases of lies you seem to be talking about? Is there a definition in your head for the words "proof" and "evidence"? Are you fucking serious?

Am I serious that you should never stop thinking for yourself? Am I serious that you should never blindly follow someone else's interpretation of events or facts? Yes. Yes I am.

 

[Miles Maldonado]

Being some apparently weird brand of Christian who thinks God's basically playing a vastly superior version of Spore, and created humanity in his image for the sake of being superior to all other species, I can say that the only reason I can think of to reject evolution is because they can't find a way to believe in it while not betraying their own beliefs - and, in lieu of that ability, reject evolution as a lie.

I'm going to try not to sound overly narcissistic or something but I think I've proved myself rather different from other Christians by being cool with homosexuality and now evolution. I think it's a natural direction for the belief to go into and adapt to the times - and if you think about it, it makes more sense that God would use a template than just out and out create one. Hell, you can actually make out this template in some form or another from monkeys to birds, which (IMHO) supports both evolution and God's hand in this.

So in short, people who reject evolution are people who just don't get what they're looking at, and unable to accept it as the work of God, condemn it as the work of the devil. I mean you get freaking evidence, and anyone who questions God doesn't exactly follow in his light...

...Maybe I should cut myself off before someone of more rigid beliefs comes along and tries to rip me a new one.

 

[Something Amyss]

Thanks for tearing down your own argument, it saves me time. What bothers me about evolutionists is that their prophets (scientists) admit that evolution is a theory.

What bothers me is that you don't understand what a theory is, or you'd understand there's no problem with "admitting" it.

Science is not portrayed as the infallible word of some higher power, and thus does not need to hide its status. Nor is a scientific theory particularly something to be ashamed of.

You seem to be a fan of false equivalence, but one can replicate evolutionary results independently. Since you're so quick to compare scientists to religious folk, can you tell me how I can replicate the miracles of the Bible, or spiritual acts of any other holy book, on my own?

 

[disgruntledgamer]

I am baffled by the statement, that evolution is as founded or even more founded than gravity. First of all: I don't believe in evolution, I KNOW that there is hard evidence for many evolutionary machanisms. You don't believe in that, that's a scientifically proven fact. Why I still reject parts of the evolution theory? Well, because it is not that well founded, like the OP suggests.

Actually it is. I'm not going to repost the evidence you can just look back what I and other people have shown, but I suspect no matter how much evidence proof or facts I give you won't chage your mind as you seem to have made it up before getting to the starting gate.

Of course you have mechanisms like modification, which explain a large range of things like making a white moth black, having different people with different skin colors and several subspecies of dogs, all of which originate in Canis Lupus, the common wolf. If you look at the difference between a Chihuahua, a Great Dane and said wolf, this is amazing enough. But lets go a little bit deeper and look at the bigger picture.
Modification is, unlike mutation, a mechanism that recombines existing genetic material. There are mechanisms for modification going on in the process of the merging of sperm and ovum. But the effects you get from this are in the range of going from a dog to a wolf and vica verca. Which means, no genetic material is added and no material is removed. Thats just not how breeding works (Mendel could tell you some things about that).

LoL I love how you give an example of evolution and than call it Modification without actually explaining what you consider to be modification on a molecular level. Also you're wrong Substitution, Addition and Deletion mutation can cause new information and can cause things like fur color change, the pocket mouse is a good example. Your attempt to redefine evolution and give it a new name is laughable.

http://www.dnatube.com/video/11928/Natural-Selection-and-Adaptation

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/comparative/

This is one of my favorite examples, so here a little excursion. There are many fossils between Hyracotherium and our modern horse. But even in this well documented example, we still have a load of gaps. Most of the intermediate states of the horse's evolution are still missing. I know, that is no proof against it, but it is also not "a stronger theory than gravity".

You obviously didn't watch the video I provided on my first post as it answers your issues completely, and it is a stronger theory than gravity whatever you want to admit it or not. The reasons have already been explain on the first couple of pages.

There are several problems with this. First of all, the genetic code, like any codification, allows only a certain number of meaningful combinations. With most of the mutations, the result is either unnoticable, which has no "advantage" in an evolutionary sense, or the resulting creature will be in a worse condition than its ancestors or rightout nonviable. There are several mechanisms in the DNA of any living creature on this planet (I DON'T want to argue, if viruses are living creatures or not, that is a completely different topic), which PREVENT mutations from happening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair). They are constantly repairing errors in the DNA and therefore prevent mutations.

Reading the first couple pages of a wikipedia pages does not make you an expert. Yes we have mechanisms like Polymerase that repair DNA but it's not full proof. And when these fail it can result in a beneficial, silent or harmful mutations.

A good example of this is Nylon-eating bacteria, Which resulted from a frame-shift mutation which added information. Now since Nylon wasn't invented until 1935......... You get the picture, we have also duplicated this process in the lab in other bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa which got to evolve to break down Nylon. However Pseudomonas aeruginosa did not use the same enzyme as Flavobacterium strain.

Like this, mutations are very unlikely as such. As stated before, "good" (i.e. meaningful mutations, that are not ignored and do not righout kill the resulting creature) are also very unlikely. At this point, there is the argument with the tornado on the junkyard. If you have a tornado running over a junkyard, you will get a big mess. But there is a small possibility, that it will result in something meaningful, like a fully functioning car. So if you have a really big amount of tornados running over the junkyard (we are talking about billions or trillions, given the amount of time earth exists), one of them will eventually produce said car. The problem is, that then comes the next tornado and destroys the damn thing... What I want to say is: yes, there is a possibility for "good" mutations, but there is an even greater possibility for mutations, that destroy the whole thing again. So even given the amount of time we have, the possibility is running against zero to have not only advanced organisms, but also the variety of species we have today.
It is in this case a simple matter of information theory and math.

This is a classical definition of a Straw-Man. You built up this made up flawed position and than attempted to tear it down. An argument I might add that isn't even your own as I've seen this example used and debunked before. Sorry but it's not going to work mutations aren't tornado's running through a junk yard and evolution isn't random. You completely ignored natural selection either because you don't understand it or you purposely ignored it.

Evolution is like trying to pick a sequence of lets say 9 numbers. Picking all 9 numbers in the first shot is highly unlikely, but natural selection allows you to save the numbers you get right. Try it it doesn't take that long.

We don't even have to go as far as looking as the chemistry of large molecules, amino acids in particular, to support my point.

I'm pretty sure your point would just be another copy and pasted Straw-Man wall of text, so I might as well debunk it now and save you the time, it's a combination of chemical reactions and thermodynamics.

I will not start a debate about the spontaneous ermegence of life, since this thread only discusses evolution, but this would also an interesting topic to further develop my thesis.

I'm sure your YEC school will be proud, but in reality.

TL;DR:
What I want to say is, that you have to be careful, what you call a "fact". You have to check everything you are given as a fact today, because there are to many people trying to enforce their own agenda.
I don't want you to run into the curches, I want you to run to your books (or even wikipedia might be a good start). Check your facts, check the people that are giving them to you and start thinking for yourselves. Please please please, for the sake of humanity...

I am very careful what I call facts and I do check them, the fact you don't like that they're facts is irrelevant. Your misconception and disinformation isn't changing that they're facts. I've debunked your copy and pasted creationist mombo jumob before and will continue to do so. Also I rarely use wikipedia I prefer to use more credible sources.

 

[Filiecs]

Asking why people reject the evidence behind evolution wont get you very far. People are crazy, will believe whatever they want to believe, and we have no right to stop them. Personally, I have no problems with people rejecting the evidence behind evolution as long as they accept that their belief is highly improbable. Such people are necessary in order to keep people from foolishly accepting the most probable explanation as fact, which happens a lot. Without people who question the probable, it would have taken a much longer time to discover DNA's effects as, back then, most scientists were sure that our genes were coded in proteins.

 

[ArnRand]

No one (outside of single-forum crazies) actually reject evolution as a concept. The theory of evolution is the reason we have "superbugs", good and bad bacteria, dog breeds, etc.

Now, the idea of "Evolution Created All Life" is rejected by many, and it's not really without reason. Even ignoring incompatibility with personal religion, we still have fun dilemmas like abiogenesis crop up, mathematical improbability, the requirement for an infinite universe (in terms of time), and such. It's all grounds to be skeptical.

Now, obviously, one should at least attempt to research it further, but the massive (almost purposeful) misunderstanding between the two sides makes it difficult to find what you're looking for. Shame on everyone, really.

abiogenesis is a dilema, but a seperate one to evolution. Once we have life, we can have evolution, but evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. (much like it doesn't explain, say, electricity.) Can you explain what you mean by mathematical improbability and an infinite universe? Evolution is very probable over long enough time scales. I've got no idea what you mean about an infinite universe though.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Thanks for tearing down your own argument, it saves me time. What bothers me about evolutionists is that their prophets (scientists) admit that evolution is a theory.

What bothers me is that you don't understand what a theory is, or you'd understand there's no problem with "admitting" it.

Science is not portrayed as the infallible word of some higher power, and thus does not need to hide its status. Nor is a scientific theory particularly something to be ashamed of.

You seem to be a fan of false equivalence, but one can replicate evolutionary results independently. Since you're so quick to compare scientists to religious folk, can you tell me how I can replicate the miracles of the Bible, or spiritual acts of any other holy book, on my own?

Sure. While i'm on that, why don't you make something evolve? A Komodo Dragon into a flying Komodo dragon would be cool. I'll even give you seven days. Whoever is the first to do their respective challanges wins, otherwise it'll have to be a draw.

Incidentally, i'm not arguing against either standpoint. It really comes down to people saying "because I can read it, that makes it true". What's interesting about this is that scientists gain knowledge by challenging what they've been taught. That's the difference you're not seeing. Neither side of this argument is willing to challenge what they've been taught, especially when those teachings are being questioned by "heretics". I'll repeat myself here. That's why we can't have nice things.

"Modern science comes from Descartes, who said that the conquest of nature is achieved through measurement and number. Do you know how he came to that realization? He had a psychedelic experience with mushrooms in which an angel told him this was so."

 

[fenrizz]

Because some people will take the word of a 2000 year old book very, very seriously and thus reject anything that might conflict with said book.

People will believe what they believe, and sadly there is not much we can do about it.

 

[WOPR]

To put it bluntly? Because of religion. "That's a huge, sweeping, generalization!"
Fine fine. The REASON it's because of religion is simple. When people are lied to (or told something different) their whole life, it doesn't matter how much you try and convince them otherwise, they just won't believe you.

Not to stop another flame war let me give a comparison that almost everyone can relate to.
Remember Pluto? That cute little planet in the sky way the frick out there?
Remember when we were told "Oh, our bad, Pluto isn't a planet." and no one wanted to believe it? How all the stuff was going around about if it is or isn't, how it's a different type of planet or something, how there were "Honk if you think Pluto is a planet!" bumper stickers?
Same thing applies here. If someone was raised their whole life on the teaching that "Boys were made from dirt and girls were made from the bones of males." of course they're not going to want to accept anything else no matter the proof. Just like people not wanting to accept that Pluto is just a chunk of rock and ice in a second asteroid belt known as the Kuiper belt.

Hope that clears SOME stuff up.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Sure. While i'm on that, why don't you make something evolve? A Komodo Dragon into a flying Komodo dragon would be cool. I'll even give you seven days. Whoever is the first to do their respective challanges wins, otherwise it'll have to be a draw.

Can I be in this competition? Because I've already done this with bacteria, you also spelled challenges wrong.

[

What bothers me about evolutionists is that their prophets (scientists) admit that evolution is a theory. They admit that at any moment they could stumble across a tablet saying "Mike, make sure to put some more dinosaur bones here - Gabe. PS make sure you clean up all these tables, the big guy doesn't want any found lol". They admit that, however unlikely, something could disprove the theory. Then you get their followers, who as soon as the theory is brought into question start screaming out "heretic!!!!".

I really don't think you understand what a scientific theory is or how relevant it is. A scientific theory holds more weight than facts or laws as they can contain facts and laws. Also there has been cases where people have tried to pass off false findings like fake dinosaur bones, but they really don't fool anyone in their field of study.

Time 6:35 - 8:20

 

[Razorback0z]

Dude, I'm a biology student as well but you have to let it go. The people don't want any information or explanation because they are completely embedded in their delusional view of one dog fully evolving from a fish and hoping for another fish to evolve into a compatible female dog to keep the new species alive.

Also, boo for religion thread in offtopic!

Most arguments I hear against evolution indicate a lack of understanding. These people don't reject evolution - they don't even know what evolution really is. They reject some nonsense twisted version of it where monkeys spontaneously turn into people or whatever.

Maybe we should secretly find a way to grow a human fetus inside a female ape, then gift the pregnant ape to a zoo. That oughta shut some up.

"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."

It was true in the movie and its true in life. Some people dont want to learn the truth and they will hate you for trying to help them learn it.

Also Nimzabaat is a classic example of the major problem many people have with understand evolution, inability to comprehend the timescales. I mean komodo dragon to flying komodo dragon in 7 days ? Im not even going to comment on that nonsense. But I will say that even as a person convinced of evolutionary theory, even I have trouble with the timescales, so if your brain was already hampered with junk like the earth being 10K years old, Im sure it would make it even more difficult.

 

[lacktheknack]

No one (outside of single-forum crazies) actually reject evolution as a concept. The theory of evolution is the reason we have "superbugs", good and bad bacteria, dog breeds, etc.

Now, the idea of "Evolution Created All Life" is rejected by many, and it's not really without reason. Even ignoring incompatibility with personal religion, we still have fun dilemmas like abiogenesis crop up, mathematical improbability, the requirement for an infinite universe (in terms of time), and such. It's all grounds to be skeptical.

Now, obviously, one should at least attempt to research it further, but the massive (almost purposeful) misunderstanding between the two sides makes it difficult to find what you're looking for. Shame on everyone, really.

abiogenesis is a dilema, but a seperate one to evolution. Once we have life, we can have evolution, but evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. (much like it doesn't explain, say, electricity.) Can you explain what you mean by mathematical improbability and an infinite universe? Evolution is very probable over long enough time scales. I've got no idea what you mean about an infinite universe though.

"Evolution" is a catch-all to many people in the great "God vs. Accident" argument (more misunderstandings!).

Thus, to most people, when they say "Evolution is full of holes!", they refer to abiogenesis, or the infinite universe.

And what I mean by "infinite" is that the universe suffers the same issues as abiogenesis, so some great thinkers and scientists (Stephen Hawking, for instance) have concluded that the universe has no definite "beginning" or "end" (big bangs and big crunches aside). That's... shaky.

And despite what the guy above says, the chance of life does not approach 1. Sure, after we look at enough planets, it may approach 1, but between abiogenesis, survival of the first creature, and instantly obtained methods of reproduction, among other things (Nutrition? Population die-out? Cataclysm?), the universe is still too small. If we have 1 x 10^1000000 chances that something could happen (that sounds like a decent number), but the chance of it actually happening is 1 x 10^2000000, then it's still not going to happen. It doesn't approach one.

That said, the above is made up numbers that approximate my understanding and conclusions. They could be way off... but I doubt it.

 

[Navvan]

Thanks for tearing down your own argument, it saves me time. What bothers me about evolutionists is that their prophets (scientists) admit that evolution is a theory.

What bothers me is that you don't understand what a theory is, or you'd understand there's no problem with "admitting" it.

Science is not portrayed as the infallible word of some higher power, and thus does not need to hide its status. Nor is a scientific theory particularly something to be ashamed of.

You seem to be a fan of false equivalence, but one can replicate evolutionary results independently. Since you're so quick to compare scientists to religious folk, can you tell me how I can replicate the miracles of the Bible, or spiritual acts of any other holy book, on my own?

Sure. While I'm on that, why don't you make something evolve? A Komodo Dragon into a flying Komodo dragon would be cool. I'll even give you seven days. Whoever is the first to do their respective challenges wins, otherwise it'll have to be a draw.

Incidentally, I'm not arguing against either standpoint. It really comes down to people saying "because I can read it, that makes it true". What's interesting about this is that scientists gain knowledge by challenging what they've been taught. That's the difference you're not seeing. Neither side of this argument is willing to challenge what they've been taught, especially when those teachings are being questioned by "heretics". I'll repeat myself here. That's why we can't have nice things.

"Modern science comes from Descartes, who said that the conquest of nature is achieved through measurement and number. Do you know how he came to that realization? He had a psychedelic experience with mushrooms in which an angel told him this was so."

Challenging what you are taught is certainly something people should do. Evolution is a bit harder to test within the confines of your own home than say gravity, but it certainly is testable. You don't even need a living organism to test it out.

1. Grab a collection of object that are identical except for color or some single observable trait. (20-50 is good for demonstration but it will work with any amount greater than 3)
2. Take half (or less than half if odd) of the objects and place them in a container of some sort, and keep the other half for later in the experiment
3. Select a color.
4. Count the fraction of objects of each color within the container
5. Remove a fraction of the population by only choosing objects of the selected color. I like 1/4th, but any fraction will do so long as it doesn't exceed the fraction of the population with that color.
6. For every object in the container add another object of the same color (from those that you left out in step 2)
7. Stop, or repeat steps 5-6 as many times as you like
8. Count the fraction of objects of the selected color and compare it to the fraction counted in step 4.
9. Analyze the results however you like to determine whether or not there was a significant shift in the trait (color of your object's population
10. If there was a significant shift in the color frequency, then you just observed evolution via artificial selection
11. One can draw a logically consistent corollary that any force can supply the selection instead of the experimentalist.
12. Thus evolution by natural selection is possible.

This only tells the home experimentalist that natural selection is a logical possibility, not that it happens. However there have been a number of studies that demonstrate such events do occur in nature. An individual may come to their own conclusion whether or not the scientific process, and peer review in particular, is a trustworthy source of information. I personally find it an acceptable compromise given the alternative (verifying each study individually) whenever I can conclude that the results are logically consistent such as when demonstrated with the above experiment.

However most people who have a problem with the theory of evolution don't disagree that evolution is an observable phenomenon (I.E. that the traits of populations can change over time) but that it can lead to speciation. This can be explained by the following logic.

P1. From the experiment above it was determined that the frequency of a trait can change over time as a result of natural selection
P2. New traits can arise through mutation any number of times. I will assume that anybody will agree on this given its overwhelming evidence, but it is absolutely critical for evolution to result in new species.
P3. Two species are said to be different from one another if they possess some number of differing traits. (Intentionally very vague to cover all definitions of "species").

1: From P2 and P1 we can conclude that new traits arise, and are selected for or against.
2: If selected for the frequency of this new trait will increase (definition).
3: New traits can arise any number of times, and be selected for or against (restatement of part of P2)
4: Through the logical extreme of 2 the trait can be selected for so strongly that after a number of generations each member of the population possess it.
6. A population can then accumulate a number of traits that are selected for such that each member of the population possess the set of new traits that were not possessed by the starting population.
6: The population, now possessing a number of traits the original population did not, is a new species by P3
7: A new species can then arise from an existing species via selection.

As before this only shows that it is logically consistent that evolution by natural selection can lead to speciation and not that it has in nature. For that, once again, we have to look at the scientific studies that suggest that it did. In this case namely the fossil record, molecular biology, and some ongoing instances of speciation that are being studied.

I am unaware (and unable to devise) of any analogous demonstration of the logical consistency of creationism. I look forward to any such response that can provide that for me. If anybody thinks I made some sort of skip in logic or false assumption please alert me so that I can either address it or correct my post as the case may be.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Science also isn't improved by close-minded people such as yourself.

Slow down and establish the closed-mindedness of the person you're quoting before going on your little tirade there, tiger. Otherwise, it is quite vapid. Define closed-mindedness first, too.

Edit: And by the way, after the probably close to tenth time being told about the challenges to evolution not holding up, you may want to either acknowledge it or deny and present counterpoints to it instead of deflecting. Deflecting makes you look bad.

It doesn't make me look as bad as someone who says something close minded and stupid.

"Science wasn't improved by idiotic challenges pulled out of people's asses because they're brainwashed" - Dijkstra

And then someone else drops that part to make it look like I said something out of context. I realize that people generally don't read "up", but that's pretty weak.

I'm also not "challenging" the theory of evolution per se. In my life i've experienced things that support both sides of the argument. I'm simply pointing out that all of the evidence and facts that support evolution are simply text written by a person, a fallible person. The same goes for the bible. That's all i'm pointing out here and yet all the evolutionists are getting so damned defensive about it and, in that defensiveness, their minds are closed.

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

If I had to guess, I'd say its because they feel if they accept evolution, they have to be atheist but their faith means a lot to them so they reject evolution rather than rejecting faith.

 

[Snotnarok]

Because people do not understand that a theory isn't a guess, the earth going around the sun is a theory, gravity is a theory. What they might be confusing theory with is a hypothesis.
Or they're basing it on old information and dismissing information because of their beliefs.

To which I have one reply to: Believe all you want in something, believe your car doesn't need gas ALL you want, but in the end your car will stop and the fact is you're now stuck with that realization. Beliefs do not dismiss facts, we've witnessed small evolutionary steps and if you're one of those who think "Man is too complex to have evolved no matter those steps we've seen!" you're not recalling that there's millions of years of life existing and for this to come along.

 

[Malfungus]

Basically we're all a bunch of Luddites trying to find some meaning amidst all this absurdity.