Why do people reject evolution?

Nimzabaat

New member
Feb 1, 2010
886
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Nimzabaat said:
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

New member
Feb 7, 2009
2,790
0
0
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

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,912
0
0
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

New member
Mar 6, 2012
905
0
0
Nimzabaat said:
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.

Nimzabaat said:
[

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

New member
Feb 10, 2009
363
0
0
Quaxar said:
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!
Redingold said:
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

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
ArnRand said:
lacktheknack said:
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

New member
Feb 3, 2011
560
0
0
Nimzabaat said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Nimzabaat said:
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

New member
Feb 1, 2010
886
0
0
Hammeroj said:
Nimzabaat said:
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

New member
Oct 5, 2010
911
0
0
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

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
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

New member
Nov 29, 2012
1
0
0
Basically we're all a bunch of Luddites trying to find some meaning amidst all this absurdity.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
wulf3n said:
I think you're confusing natural selection with evolution.
I think you're trying to dodge obvious evidence simply because it's inconvenient.
Dodging the question by claiming I'm dodging the question... clever girl.

Ok I'll play, what evidence have I dodged?

Zachary Amaranth said:
wulf3n said:
you missed the point. When someone raises an argument for something you believe in, you're less likely to give it the proper critical analysis, so what can seem like irrefutable proof to you, is just more of the same to others.
Speak for yourself, John.
who's john? and again you've yet to counter a point.

Zachary Amaranth said:
wulf3n said:
Besides, since when is not believing in something because you have questions about it a bad thing?
Strawman.
You know typing random buzz words isn't as effective as you may think it is.

So there we have it, yet again you've provided evidenced that you're no better than those arguing creationism.

Do you know the one of the fundamental tenets of science is that nothing can ever truly be proven, and to believe a theory as fact is foolish.

Albert Einstein - "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Zachary Amaranth said:
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.
And yet, as soon as someone questions said theory or asks for evidence, 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.

It's that you spout it like it is doctrine from a higher power that's the problem.

Quaxar said:
I think you are confusing how evolution works. Natural selection is an essential part of change over time.
Really what makes you say that?

Natural Selection is existing genetic traits becoming more desirable due to environmental factors, causing a change in a species. But the changes already existed in the genetic code.

Evolution is changes to a species that don't exist in genetic code.

Quaxar said:
And anyway, we have also observed changes not accounted for in the original genetic code.
Source?
 

TurboPanda

New member
Apr 19, 2010
65
0
0
The reason why evolution, the big bang, etc are theories is because we never can be 100% certain they actually happened. What science can do however is prove a theory WRONG. This is evolution's strong point. For 150 years this theory has been analysed, scrutinized and torn apart, yet right now the evidence we have for it stands higher than ever. Normally good scientific theories are the ones that can withstand criticism and can even be used to predict future discoveries (DNA, probably the biggest piece of evidence for Evolution wasn't discovered until 70 years after Darwin died). Almost everything about humanity from why we have appendix to why we have morals can be explained through evolution.

Despite this evolution could still it could still be wrong. However disproving it means going up against the most researched theory that's ever existed. Good Luck.
 

kjrubberducky

New member
Dec 21, 2008
133
0
0
Christopher N said:
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.
Exactly. You have so many people claiming that you can't have both evolution and religion, you can't have both science and God, you have to pick just one. So they pick the one that means more to them personally, or maybe they're just pushed away by the person telling them what to believe.

And believing in something just because it has consensus might not be the most intelligent thing to do.