Why do people reject evolution?

[Canadamus Prime]

Well I figure it's either because:
a) They don't understand what a scientific theory actually means
b) They have their head stuck up their ass
c) Um... actually I won't get into that one 'cause it'll probably cause a flame war
d) all of the above

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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

Your emotion on the truth doesnt have any impact on if its true or not. These feelings should be totally irrelivant to if you accept evolution or not.

And honestly, it isnt objectively depressing. I LIKE being a tiny cog in the grand mechanism that is the universe. No nothing objectively "matters" but we can decide for ourselves what matters. And since we have such a wonderful universe that spawned us we have a lot to choose from. We arnt nothing. We are part of this:

http://media.skysurvey.org/interactive360/index.html

And if you cant see how some people find that concept breathtakingly beautiful then i feel kinda sorry for you :/ I dont need to feel special. The universe is special. And im a tiny part of it and i love it.

 

[2xDouble]

There is evidence to support the position that several (and, in fact, many) species have not evolved over the past age or so. Therefore the belief that everything can and must inevitably evolve is proven false. Species do evolve, some have not. It really is that simple.

Both sides may now proceed to pull their heads out of their collective butts.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

No that was not what I was saying. I said it became popular at that particular time largely because of that. Not long before Darwin another scientist came with what was basically the same theory and no one paid him any heed. And your "facts" I would suggest you looked really hard at. Most "facts" of science gets reworked so often that I think you would be surprised by what is "fact" now.

To denigrate science because it has been wrong more often than right is to miss the point entirely. Science is based upon eliminating pockets of ignorance and one is only as effective as the tools allow them to be.

Take, for example, the previously held belief that the earth was the center of the universe. This seemed reasonable enough because when one observes the sky above them they find the sun appears to rotate around the earth as do the observable planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Neptune is too far to observe without aid) and all the stars. Thus all available empirical evidence (that is, information that could be observed and recorded) suggested the earth was at the center and everything revolved around it. Other arrangements of motion could explain this of course but there was no compelling reason to explore them as the accepted model was sufficient to explain what was observed.

Then a guy invents a telescope and started looking at Jupiter and noticed odd little points of light around the planet. Across many nights he noticed that those odd points of light moved in an odd way. Having just discovered the four Galilean moons, Galileo attempted to reconcile their observed motion with the geo-centric model of the universe but was not able to do so. Thus a new model was needed to explain it and the accepted one arrived at was that the earth and the planets revolved around the Sun and some planets had things similar to our moon revolving around them in perfect circles. More observations were made with better telescopes and eventually people realized that the motion of the planets was not a circle but an ellipse. This lead to a question of why they move in an ellipse and to do that a new system of calculation was required (the first truly new system in millennial) and thus Calculus was born. But there was still despair as the model suggested that the solar system was not stable and no explanation could be found for why it hadn't either collapsed or been torn apart until a century later when it was discovered that the system was, in fact, stable without needing to invoke a corrective "hand of god".

Thus you see the trend. Science is about consistency. A phenomena is observed, a model is developed to explain the phenomena, and everyone is happy until new evidence arrives that renders the previous model inconsistent. All of science is rooted in the rule of consistency. The rules of math require consistency (the reason why it is impossible to divide any real number by zero using algebra for example or why .999... = 1) as do the rules of science. Facts do not exist - you have a fixed and finite system of rules, observations and models based upon that observation. To adhere to a model when contradictory evidence exists is not nor will it ever be science.

So, to put it more simply, if you're looking for truth you won't find it in science. What you'll find there is the search for truth and nothing more. After a few thousand years of searching, we've certainly come closer in a lot of areas.

 

[Pero]

I see a lot of people saying that religious people are the main people who reject evolution and I only wanted to say that all catholics and eastern church people accept evolution.

Not all of them.

Well The Vatican accepts evolution so that means if you're catholic and don't accept evolution then you really aren't catholic. And I do not know much about eastern church but all my friends who are in eastern church accept evolution sooo...
You're maybe confused by some protestant groups who take Bible literally but there aren't many of thoose.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Besides, who are you, any of you, to criticize beliefs? Just 'cause you think evolution's right, doesn't mean everyone should think it's right, or that it even is right. There are "missing links" in evolution, right?

If there is one, its one we have yet to take into account. Our fossil record can accurately show not just our own evolution, but the evolution of other species as well?

Wikipedia tells me humans in their current state have been around for about 200,000 years. Why haven't we evolved further yet?

Significant changes take sever million years to become dominant. We have, however, gone through a few minor changes over those several years. Our ability to use fire to cook our meat led to our bodies absorbing more nutrients, meaning we had to eat less. As a result, our stomachs have gotten significantly smaller and our brains have become larger. Our size has also seen a significant jump since the agricultural revolution, where the average human male was about 5'5. For fucks sake man, just look at your goddamn thumb and try to tell me Evolution isn't real. Why would we have such an digit if it were not related to prime apes in some way?

I haven't looked into it too far, but if evolution is indeed that slow, how'd we get from single-celled organisms to, well, us in the time life has been on Earth? (Approx. 3.5 billion years, I guess.)

Because Evolution isn't always as slow, humanity has had no reason to evolve and most mutations in the last 200,000 years have proven to be harmful to us. Other animals and plants have seen new species appear during those 200,000 years. Even then, we're talking about 200,000 years in 3.5 billion years. 200,000 is only 5% of 3.5 billion. Its a long ass time.

 

[johnnyboy2537]

I see a lot of people saying that religious people are the main people who reject evolution and I only wanted to say that all catholics and eastern church people accept evolution.

Not all of them.

Well The Vatican accepts evolution so that means if you're catholic and don't accept evolution then you really aren't catholic. And I do not know much about eastern church but all my friends who are in eastern church accept evolution sooo...
You're maybe confused by some protestant groups who take Bible literally but there aren't many of thoose.

I used to be Catholic and our instructor did take the Bible literally. Not all accept it.

 

[Heronblade]

There is evidence to support the position that several (and, in fact, many) species have not evolved over the past age or so. Therefore the belief that everything can and must inevitably evolve is proven false. Species do evolve, some have not. It really is that simple.

Both sides may now proceed to pull their heads out of their collective butts.

Uh, who is saying that?

So long as a creature remains well suited for their current environment and role, any random mutations will tend to cancel out/be absorbed. Its only when an adaptation leads to a better survival rate that species change. There's nothing inevitable about the process.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

snip

Just to preface this, I'm a biology university student. Now I don't really have time to go into lots of detail, so I'll keep this brief: micro and macro evolution is a simplification of what is in reality a spectrum of evolutionary changes. Some mutations cause no noticeable difference to an organism, some very minor and then some will cause an actual significant physiological change. All successful (ones that don't get bred out of the population) mutations are adaptive to your environment though, regardless of how major or minor they are.

While there is some debate about "punctuated equilibrium" models of evolution, the generally accepted theory is that every change is gradual and thus a fish will never suddenly be born with legs, rather many generations of fish would go through successive stages of having slightly stronger fins that would be slightly better at pulling themselves across land for short periods of time (for example to reach other ponds) and over millions of years, those fins would become so strong and well-adapted for use on land they'd effectively be legs. There wouldn't be a single point where you could clearly say "and now those are legs", just a gradual change towards leg-likeness.

Hope this clears up what you were looking for

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhh....see, this makes way more sense to me

I always thought the idea of Macro evolution (as I understood it) made absolutely no sense. That may have been my own mis-understanding of what I was taught or I was taught incorrectly. So my definition of Micro-evolution (adapting to your environment and small, generation spanning-gradual change) is what is "Scientifically defined" as normal evolution, correct?

If that is the case, then I do agree with evolution and I don't see any confliction between my religious beliefs and the scientific theory of evolution. Assuming I understand you correctly, thank you for clearing that up JoJo.

You've understood it perfectly now Tippy, unfortunately it seems like a law of nature that almost anything taught in school will be somehow simplified and over-complicated that the same time. Anyway happy to be of service, have a nice day :-D

There is technically evidence of "Macro" evolution where major changes occur within a single generation, where it is most recently associated with frogs due to pollution suddenly growing 7 legs or having no eyes. While this is just called a mutation, all evolution is just that, mutations that survive to breed and create more with this new attribute. In the case of the frogs they all die out because the changes were too extreme/environment was still too hostile/they were really useless mutations, but this leads to the possible existence of actual leaps in biology in other creatures that we may have just not noticed due to only really paying attention to animals recently that did pass on their genes and become the norm.

Evolution only accounts for beneficial changes. Drastic physical mutations within a single generation are rarely beneficial. If a baby was born now with a significantly larger head and the ability to learn at an unbelievable rate, the chances that the human physiology would have adapted to the change too are improbable to the point of impossible. Can the human heart cater for the increased brain size or will the brain be slowly deprived of oxygen due to the hearts current pressure not being adequate enough? Does the human neck bone harden to accommodate the increased weight? Does the human skull adjust appropriately to accommodate the new brain?

Look at gigantism and dwarfism. Both could offer beneficial changes in theory... but are marred, fatally, by the rest of the bodies basic organs (namely the heart, which is usually a problem for giants and dwarfs). Both are examples of single generation mutations.

More often then not though, this extreme, single generation mutations are just outright harmful, usually killing the baby before long.

So, Macro evolution exists in theory, but it's validity is disputed by simple probability. What we would most likely see, is maybe 1 person being born with a minutely increased brain size, which get's passed on and on and on, occasionally getting larger and larger with each generation, until we end up like this:

 

[Pero]

I see a lot of people saying that religious people are the main people who reject evolution and I only wanted to say that all catholics and eastern church people accept evolution.

Not all of them.

Well The Vatican accepts evolution so that means if you're catholic and don't accept evolution then you really aren't catholic. And I do not know much about eastern church but all my friends who are in eastern church accept evolution sooo...
You're maybe confused by some protestant groups who take Bible literally but there aren't many of thoose.

I used to be Catholic and our instructor did take the Bible literally. Not all accept it.

Strange indeed. I mean I have a religion class in school and in our book which was written by pope elites (guys who have Ph.D in theology) Big bang and evolution theory are fully accepted so then he really isn't catholic 'couse all catholics don't take Bible literally. If he does he isn't a real catholic.

 

[2xDouble]

There is evidence to support the position that several (and, in fact, many) species have not evolved over the past age or so. Therefore the belief that everything can and must inevitably evolve is proven false. Species do evolve, some have not. It really is that simple.

Both sides may now proceed to pull their heads out of their collective butts.

Uh, who is saying that?

So long as a creature remains well suited for their current environment and role, any random mutations will tend to cancel out/be absorbed. Its only when an adaptation leads to a better survival rate that species change. There's nothing inevitable about the process.

Thank you for quoting me to repeat what I said. Have a bottle of shampoo with my compliments.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Biology is the only science that isn't based on the concept of entropy - that, overtime, things will degenerate and dissipate. How is it that a science with is essentially the culmination of physics and chemistry not circum to entropy?

Utterly invalid. Biology is derived from chemistry - the science most commonly concerned with thermodynamics. The principles of entropy and enthalpy are both studied and important to biology. For example, the classification between warm blooded and cold blooded creatures, the discovery and extensive study of ATP and so forth. It is simply that biology is concerned with far larger systems of interaction than chemistry of physics. To put it another way, physics is concerned with the fundamental motions of matter while chemistry is concerned with incredibly complex motions of matter. Biology is concerned with incredibly complex interactions of chemical systems. The details used to explain chemistry are not often terribly important to describe some aspect of observed biology.

These are 14 points of evidence for a young earth.

Weighed against fairly compelling evidence including the observed erosion rate of soil, the observed expansion of the universe, background radiation, various deep field evidence, various bits about radioactive decay, the existence of evidence of life that pre-dates human observation, etc. While the exact age of the planet may not be possible to derive, the body of evidence is sufficient to make the claim that it is far older than the few thousand years the young earth theory suggests. Most attempts to use evidence like you suggest is the result of confirmation bias rather than any sound scientific methodology.

What's interesting is that over the last 200 years the theories surrounding the earth's magnetic field have constantly changed, while only one theory has remained true: the theory that the earth is about 6000 years old and the magnetic field will dissipate in about 20,000 years.

Given that the magnetic field is the result of motion of relatively hot components of the planet itself, to claim the "field will disappear" is tantamount to claiming "the motion will cease". And to point to inconsistencies in various theories over the last 200 years is a bit silly given the study of electromagnetism is only that old. Like anything else, you start with what you can easily observe, create a model and as means to observe things better are made you modify models as necessary.

But I also am not ignorant enough to ignore the discrepancies as well. This is why in science, you can never take any theory has hard core fact. You always have to remain open minded and willing to adjust any theory based on new evidence. But this goes the same for creation.

Here is the problem with the creationist perspective.

Fundamentally, natural selection does nothing more than provide a mechanism for a change in a population. That mechanism is the proposition that some traits are more favorable in a given set of conditions and thus increase any particular creatures odds of surviving to reproduce. Note that specifically that mechanism only suggest that differences exist between members of a population; it does not provide a reason for such differences. From here, you run into a problem. There are observed processes that can result in a change (mutations like cancer for example) and there are conditions that are known to increase the probability of some kinds of mutation (exposure to various chemical substances, certain types of electromagnetic radiation, etc) of course but the question becomes what force, if any, drives that change.

Creationism (Specifically Intelligent Design) is, fundamentally, an attempt to fill this crucial gap in knowledge and it is countered by various theories of Evolutionary Biology. On the creationist side, you have the following claim: "The small changes are governed by by some unknown but intelligent outside force" where on the evolutionary biology side you have the claim "the changes are the result of random mutation caused by various environmental factors". Thus the difference fundamentally is creationist claim design while the evolutionary biologist claims chance.

While both models provide a suitable explanation for the existence of the changes the process of natural selection relies upon, there is an obvious problem. Evidence provides enormous numbers of creatures that changed in ways that were not terribly useful. It is even possible to observe on a regular basis change that is obviously non-favorable (albino squirrels for example). This suggests that if the design is intelligent, then it isn't terribly intelligent given the vast number of things that fail arbitrarily. To explain that conundrum you're forced to introduce paradox (The classic "mysterious ways" theological argument) and thus the model is inconsistent and thus, from a scientific standpoint, not useful. By contrast, the evolutionary biology model does not require further explanation as random chance readily explains both failures and successes and thus is consistent.

With the information we can currently observe, the creationist model simply isn't consistent while the evolutionary biology model is. To put it another way, a humorous condemnation of intelligent design is simply the question "What intelligent designer puts the sewage output pipes in the recreation area?".

 

[Ragsnstitches]

There is evidence to support the position that several (and, in fact, many) species have not evolved over the past age or so. Therefore the belief that everything can and must inevitably evolve is proven false. Species do evolve, some have not. It really is that simple.

Both sides may now proceed to pull their heads out of their collective butts.

Evolution is not a constant force. Those non-evolving species aren't exceptions to the rule, they are still very much within evolutionary theory. The only reason they haven't changed is that they are already well suited to their environment. In these scenarios, the mutations that can occur over time and lead to evolutionary changes, are far less prominent, negligible or outright harmful. Meaning they either die out, or have no impact on the species what so ever.

If the ecosystems were to change all of the sudden, then these species would not be as well adapted as they once were, and given time, they may evolve as a result of a mutation that brings their species back into equilibrium with the ecosystem.

That's how evolution should be viewed, not as an autonomous force of nature, or constant progression, but as a self righting mechanism. Evolution is a natural means for life to reach an equilibrium within their ecosystem.

 

[R3dF41c0n]

Human beings tend to cling to their beliefs (no matter how illogical) even tighter when faced with facts contradicting it. There's no convincing them. They have to choose. Thankfully humans only live about 100 years giving newer generations an opportunity implement their ideas and beliefs.

tl:dr By the time I'm an old man most people (religious or not) will accept evolution.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

"indoctrinate their children"? Unless you're talking about a cult or some group that controls the flow of information and ideas, that idea doesn't hold a lot of water. Parents don't have that much control on what their children think. Just look at all the angry people on this board alone who are atheists and complain about religious parents.

Strong evidence from various fields of psychological study as well as sociology and a vast wealth of anthropological evidence suggests you'd be incorrect in your assertion. Hell, it is only in the last few decades that it was reasonably possible to readily find contradictory view points and thus for the vast expanse of human history it was simply that you'd more or less end up like you're parents because contradictory positions were simply not available. Developing a viewpoint in a vacuum is difficult at best and something wildly divergent all but impossible.

As for issues when it comes to politics... I'd like to point out that both sides in the argument believe that they are 'right' and other side is 'wrong'. There is no divine judgment that makes either side correct.

That is generally the point argued by various schools of philosophy derived from nihillism. The proposition is that god is either dead or not interested in mortal affairs thus laws are simply rules derived from morals which are constructs of men that are enforced by men and thus any person capable of changing them is perfectly justified in doing so.

While I tend to believe the proposition and the extrapolation that follows, it is also possible to recognize that societies operate on the fundamental principle that morality must be derived from a greater power than the individual. Were this not the case, society could not exist. This isn't to say that the higher power is "God" - any surrogate will do. Sufficient force or threat of force is all it takes. Most of the advances made in forms of government are nothing more than redefining the source of that nebulous force. Strength of arm is good if the group is small enough to threaten personally and this was likely the basis of early social structures. Complex systems of this force of arm are sufficient to hold together larger groups but the structure introduces a great deal of instability as population sizes increase. One can say that the strength has a divine origin (many Western monarchies, the Catholic Church ideally but most religions as well). The only other structures of governance place that strength in the hands of people around them. Socialism, Fascism and Democracy all have the same basis for morality and yet they exist in opposition based on what amount to an incredibly minor differnce in how it's used. Where socialism places ultimate power in a collective, fascism places ultimate power in a group who can better determine what's best for most of a collective while democracy is an attempt to split the difference.


Aside from that, what do you care if some group of people believe different from you? The only area where it can affect you is in the issue of laws. In law, (in most of the nations that people who visit these forums are from) the majority's opinion (usually) is made into law. Unless this group of people suddenly gain some vast amount of power, or you'd like to discuss an actual event (and give this topic some substance to its otherwise undirected comments), this sounds like a undirected throw.[/quote]

 

[Quaxar]

Evolution only accounts for beneficial changes. Drastic physical mutations within a single generation are rarely beneficial. If a baby was born now with a significantly larger head and the ability to learn at an unbelievable rate, the chances that the human physiology would have adapted to the change too are improbable to the point of impossible. Can the human heart cater for the increased brain size or will the brain be slowly deprived of oxygen due to the hearts current pressure not being adequate enough? Does the human neck bone harden to accommodate the increased weight? Does the human skull adjust appropriately to accommodate the new brain?

Look at gigantism and dwarfism. Both could offer beneficial changes in theory... but are marred, fatally, by the rest of the bodies basic organs (namely the heart, which is usually a problem for giants and dwarfs). Both are examples of single generation mutations.

More often then not though, this extreme, single generation mutations are just outright harmful, usually killing the baby before long.

So, Macro evolution exists in theory, but it's validity is disputed by simple probability.

Uh, are you arguing for or against? Because everything but the last sentence there is an absolute confirmation of the working of evolution but then you say it is a disputed theory?

Evolution doesn't account for any special changes, natural selection simply works in a way that those changes beneficial to the individual's survival in their environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those bad or harmful.
Plus, things like dwarfism have a multitude of causes and ways to act, for once there's a distinction between proportional and non-proportional. The non-proportional would primarily get eliminated by inability to perform certain actions without outside help while the proportional individuals might in the right environment have an advantage of needing fewer food or finding hiding spots easier such as it probably was the case with <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis>Homo Floresiensis (generally called the "Hobbit") in Indonesia while on the African plains it would probably present a disadvantage because small limbs make running and climbing harder and a smaller body means a smaller field of view.

 

[bowserboy26578]

It ultimately comes down to a deep belief in their religions dogma, or a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Part of it comes from the lack of understanding of what a theory in science really means as well. I suggest watching some videos from the youtuber AronRa. He covers the topic very well in several videos

 

[IamLEAM1983]

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

*bashes head on the wall and whimpers*

Not this again. Please, God, not this again!

We don't "come from monkeys". We come from the genetic ancestor for the entire line of Hominids, which happens to include Great Apes. Not saying we're not special - culture is largely based on affirming that one group is more "special" than another - but to assume we're exceptional in what we've done is a little pompous.

We're hyper-efficient Bonobos, if you want to over-simplify things. No, we don't come FROM them, but they're our genetic cousins, whether we like it or not*. Bonobos are tool users and they consider fucking a socially acceptable way to pass the time. I'd say that fits the mould for Humanity's base instincts and potential, right? Our tools have just gotten extremely complex over the millenniums.

The only practical difference between them and us is that we've had to learn to walk upright to survive, which freed up more brain power to put towards learning how to devise new and improved tools.

*Addendum: we're genetically closer to the common Chimpanzee, with the difference being measurable in one tenth of a percentile, but that tenth of a single point accounts for everything that makes us what we are. We just happen to share the Bonobos' base social skills and tool usage.

Some species are carried along by mutations and others aren't because of evolutionary stress. If you don't have any reason to actually change on a physical level, then you won't change. All mutations will be absorbed or cancelled out. If you DO have a reason - from needing to adapt to escape predators to needing to defeat certain weather conditions - then you will find that your bloodline will naturally favour those who are more fit to survive.

 

[leeprice133]

It's very simple. The only reason I can see why anyone would reject evolution is a combination of scientific ignorance and fundamentalist religious indoctrination.