Why do people reject evolution?

[IamLEAM1983]

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.

This. Purely and simply.

 

[Kopikatsu]

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

Probably because it takes longer than that for evolution to kick in? Macro evolution is measured in MYA. As in, millions of years. 200 kya is nothing. Here's a study guide that I made for myself for Anthropology, check the dates on it:

Spoiler

t is the probable range of dates for the panin / hominin divergence (i.e., when is it
likely that the earliest member of the hominin tribe appeared?)

the panin-hominin divergence occurred between 5 and 8 million years ago

What are the dates and biological characteristics (i.e., diagnostic cranial and postcranial
traits) of Sahelanthropus tchadensis?

Chad, 7 m.y.a. (estimate based on biostratigraphy,
surprisingly old) cranial capacity estimated 320 to
380 cm3 (chimpanzee size) mixture of panin-like
and hominin-like features: huge browridges, sagittal
crest, large muscle attachments, yet smallish vertical
face with front teeth that are very un-apelike?no
postcranial remains, so bipedal status unknown
(hominin status inferred from face and teeth)

What are the dates and biological characteristics (i.e., diagnostic cranial and postcranial
traits) of Orrorin tugenensis?

Ethiopia, 6 m.y.a.
mostly dental fragments, cranial capacity unknown;
some lower leg bones that apparently indicate
bipedalism

What are the dates and biological characteristics (i.e., diagnostic cranial and postcranial
traits) of Ardipithecus ramidus?

Ethiopia (Aramis), 4.4 m.y.a.; fragmentary cranial
remains, but cranial capacity probably between 300
and 350 cc; thin molar enamel (unusual for early
hominins); bipedal pelvis, forward position of
foramen magnum, forelimb not weight bearing?all
indicating bipedalism, but divergent big toe

What are the dates and biological characteristics (i.e., diagnostic cranial and postcranial
traits) of Australopithecus anamensis?

northern Kenya (Kanapoi), 4.2 ? 3.9 m.y.a.
cranial capacity unknown
primitive features including large canines; the
most primitive Australopithecine discovered so
far, but still clearly a small-brained biped with
thick molar enamel

What are the dates and biological characteristics (i.e., diagnostic cranial and postcranial
traits) of Australopithecus afarensis?

Ethiopia (Hadar), Chad, Laetoli (Tanzania)
ranging from 3.9 ? 3.0 m.y.a.
cranial capacity averaging 420 cm3 based on
extensive specimens (more than 60
individuals)
very primitive: large canines, parallel teeth
rows, but definitely bipedal
high degree of sexual dimorphism (males 5?,
females 3.5?)
?Lucy,? Laetoli footprints; a strong candidate
for the ancestor of all later hominins, based on
currently available evidence

What are the dates and biological characteristics (i.e., diagnostic cranial and postcranial
traits) of Australopithecus africanus?

southern Africa, 2.5 ? 2.0 m.y.a. (no
Australopithecine fossils have been found in
East Africa after 3.0 m.y.a.)
cranial capacity averaging 440 cm3; smallbodied,
large-toothed bipeds
the ?Taung child?

What are the dates and biological characteristics (i.e., diagnostic cranial and postcranial
traits) of Paranthropus robustus and Paranthropus boisei?

South Africa, 2.0 ? 1.3 m.y.a.
cranial capacity averaging 520 cm3
massive jaws and teeth, large broad faces, large
sagittal crest
specialized diet (seeds, nuts, and roots)

East Africa (Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania), 2.3 ?
1.0 m.y.a.
cranial capacity averaging 520 cm3
massive jaws and teeth, large broad faces, large
sagittal crest
specialized diet (seeds, nuts, and roots)

What are the dates and biological characteristics (i.e., diagnostic cranial and postcranial
traits) of Homo habilis?

Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, East Africa, 1.8 m.y.a.
average cranial capacity 630 cm3
smaller and narrower teeth, slightly larger body size
compared to the Australopithecines

What are the dates and biological characteristics (i.e., diagnostic cranial and postcranial
traits) of Homo erectus?

Homo erectus lived from 1,800,000 to 200,000 (or even
later) years ago, during the Pleistocene (?Ice Age?)
East Africa 1.8 m.y.a.
Georgia (Dmanisi) 1.75 m.y.a. (possibly an earlier form
of Homo)
Java 1.6 m.y.a. (possibly surviving to 25,000 y.a.)
China as early as 670,000 y.a.
European presence of Homo (in Spain) as early as 1.2
m.y.a. years ago was probably not Homo erectus, but
another species (perhaps Homo antecessor)

age cranial capacity 900 cm3 (with a range from 700
cm3 to 1,250 cm3)
large brow ridges (supraorbital tori), heavy cranial bones
postorbital constriction
receding forehead and chin, first prominent hominin nose
long, low skull vault, with maximum breadth low on the
skull
pentagonal skull shape from rear, shovel-shaped incisors
larger body than early Homo (average 5?6?, > 100 lbs),
with considerable sexual dimorphism (males average 6?
tall)
Nariokotome Boy (a.k.a. Turkana Boy, Lake Turkana,
Kenya, 1984), 1.6 m.y.a., 8-12 years old

What are the dates and biological characteristics (i.e., diagnostic cranial and postcranial
traits) of Homo heidelbergensis?

Africa, Asia, & Europe
850,000 years ago ? 200,000 years ago

average cranial capacity 1,200 cm3
increased parietal breadth
skull no longer pentagonal
occipital bun
pronounced brow ridges (compared to Homo sapiens)
decreased cranial and postcranial robusticity (compared
to Homo erectus)

What are the dates and biological characteristics (i.e., diagnostic cranial and postcranial
traits) of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis?

Europe and southwest Asia only; 130,000 ? 30,000
years ago

average cranial capacity 1,520 cm3
(largest brain of any hominin that?s ever lived; possible
adaptation to extreme cold)
large, long, low cranium, bulging at the sides
prominent brow ridges, projecting face, large nasal
aperture
very robust postcranially?barrel-chested, heavily
muscled

What are the dates and biological characteristics (i.e., diagnostic cranial and postcranial
traits) of Homo sapiens sapiens?

Africa 195,000 y.a.
Southwest Asia 130,000 y.a., East Asia 40,000 y.a.,
Southeast Asia 45,000
Australia ~50,000 y.a., Europe 35,000 y.a.

average cranial capacity 1,400 cm3
high, rounded cranial vault; vertical forehead; distinct
chin; small brow ridges; less robust post-cranially
little or no prognathism (the extent to which the lower
face protrudes in front of the upper face in profile)
smaller teeth evolved because of specialized tools; chin
evolved to buttress lower jaw (good example of
biocultural evolution)

What is known for certain about the exact human phylogeny from the Pliocene and
Pleistocene?

Homo heidelbergensis definitely descended from Homo erectus (although some
regional populations of Homo erectus may have become extinct)
Modern humans definitely descended from Homo heidelbergensis (although some
regional populations of Homo heidelbergensis may have become extinct)

Humans probably won't evolve anymore because of the medical sciences, though. Evolution happens through natural selection, which means that those that are weak or have undesirable traits/mutations are left to die...but humans don't do that. They try their damnest to make everyone survive, which screws over the whole evolution thing.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

it's the evidence FOR Creation as well as the statements made by leading "old-earth theorists" in the 18th and 19th centuries stating that they purposefully wanted to dismantle religious dominance in the public discourse that calls it into suspect to me.



http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1842/245/

These are 14 points of evidence for a young earth.

There is no evidence for creation, when someone claims to have evidence for creation it's usually, misconceptions, half truths or just out and out lies. Thunderfoot, potholder54 and King Crocoduck have destroyed his arguments. No credible scientist thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old period.

Here's also link with sources explaining his fallacies in more detail. When you start with a conclusion and than look for evidence you only run into trouble.

http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm

The theory of evolution is actually one of the weaker theories out there, even if it's the most popular/probable explanation, it lacks a particular crucial element that makes most science far more solid- testability. Evolution is eventually testable, but not on our timescale. At best, we can observe some adaptation and extrapolate evolution from what evidence we have, but until we run proper tests with control groups and fixing various variables over millions of years, it's very difficult to actually test evolution properly.

Until it's tested and strongly demonstrated to be true not as a 'best fit' for the past, but as a predictor for the outcome of controlled tests, then you can say it's a stronger theory (but still not quite as strong as gravity or a lot of other physics that gives us very precise mathematical predictions for how the laws of physics work, and are far more extensively tested... biology on that scale is far more fuzzy a science).

Actually we have tested evolution and done exactly what you wanted, for quite sometime now. How do you think we make new antibiotics? We have also done experiments showing evolution with fruit flies back in the early 90s. In fact we're still doing such experiments, but much more advanced.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/flies-learn-math/

I know the scientific theory but more often than not scientists will try to force the conclusion to suit their theory. This happens because of A money and B pride. I am not saying that there are no good scientists out there but there is an inherent flaw in our motives for science that forces us to consider the results. That being said my original point wasn't to discredit science but to try and show people the other view because right now all parts of the discussion are not even trying to see the view from the other side.

No actually they don't for quite simple reasons really.

If a scientist publishes findings that are found out to be falsified he loses all credibility and no one would higher him (except maybe a YEC institute) You see science is very critical of itself and the minute you publish anything in science you're going to get a line up of other scientists picking your experiment apart looking for holes and trying to recreate it.

If holes are found or it cannot be recreated, it gets rejected, you get criticized and shamed. We have a whole system set up to filter out falsified data, and most scientists recognize this.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

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.

Neither. I acknowledge that Macroevolution is theoretically possible, but I subscribe to the idea that macroevolution is merely the effects of microevolution compounded over longer periods of time. Essentially I don't make the distinction "micro and macro" when discussing the term evolution, since macro is merely an extension of micro with time and scale being the only differentiator.

I accept the system of Microevolution, incremental mutations affecting bigger change over long periods of time, since it accounts for all changes, including the complete transformation and re-purposing of limbs (fins to stronger fins to durable and rigid appendages to legs), the gradual changes of certain functions (photosensitive cells to, light sensitive nerve clusters to complex eyes capable of perceiving light spectrums) and so on.

It also encompasses the differences you mention within early human species. Given that they existed in those environments for tens of thousands of years and adjusted to the conditions, resulting in a wide variety of physical variations. There was no sudden change that enabled them to adapt, but multiple minute changes over long periods of time.

Macroevolution is wrongly used to explain away "missing links" and to discredit evolutionary theory. I accept it as means to categories changes (sea dwellers to land dwellers) but not as a means to explain away those changes. Microevolution is another method of categorising changes, but at much smaller scales, yet at the same time offers a competent explanation (or at least, a logical one) about how these changes occur. The (currently accepted) root cause of all changes we can account for are observed in Microevolution.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Because you have to think beyond what you are told. Not many have realized evolution is just what we understand of "gods" works. People love denial.

 

[Quaxar]

I acknowledge that Macroevolution is theoretically possible, but I subscribe to the idea that macroevolution is merely the effects of microevolution compounded over longer periods of time. Essentially I don't make the distinction "micro and macro" when discussing the term evolution, since macro is merely an extension of micro with time and scale being the only differentiator.

Oh, alright then. Nevermind my comment. I can totally agree with that.
Sounded a bit like your typical "microevolution is true, no question but macroevolution is bogus science" statement you always stumble upon somewhere in a creationist's debates.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Neither. I acknowledge that Macroevolution is theoretically possible, but I subscribe to the idea that macroevolution is merely the effects of microevolution compounded over longer periods of time. Essentially I don't make the distinction "micro and macro" when discussing the term evolution, since macro is merely an extension of micro with time and scale being the only differentiator.

See my post on ring species on page 1 for whoever thinks Macroevolution is only theoretically possible.

 

[Comocat]

Mainly because people who reject evolution reject the notion of science.

1) "It's just a theory" This group represents a category that you literally cannot compel regardless of the clarity of evidence. Their goldfish could literally sprout limbs and walk on land in front of them, and you would be no closer. The analogy I can think of is how the rest of the world goes bugfuck crazy over football, and in the US we sometimes watch a thing called soccer. How do you argue with someone who so fundamentally misunderstands how science works, the idea that arguments should be founded in data seems unreasonable?

2) "The ICR crowd" This group is slippery because a lack of knowledge is no barrier for them. Google Bill O'Reilly moon video and you'll see how they aren't bothered by misinformation. I don't know why the moon is where it is, but in 5 minutes I could find a prominent astrophysicist who does, or I can just bullshit an answer because whatever. Guess which position the ICR crowd takes? How can you argue with people that literally cite an organization with 0 scientific credentials as the authoratative body for disproving a scientific principle? You know who I go to verify a chemical principle, I go the journal of the american chemical society, I dont open my copy of lord of the rings and look for gandalfs take on thermodynamics. When I don't know how something works, it bothers me, this crowd isnt concerned on whether or not they understand half-life, or geology, or genetics because it's all part of "Big Science." Having a credible opinion based off data is not nearly as important as having 14 opinions pulled out of thin air.

 

[Clankenbeard]

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".

On the flip side, I've seen tons of circumstantial evidence for ghosts on about a bazillion cable TV shows. Ghosts imply spirits and souls. This does not fit in well with my sciece. So how does my science-shifted upbringing deal with it? Not really well. I'm not ready to say it is all fake or real.

 

[UltraXan]

Incidentally, I've been seeing a bunch of videos on the subject. If there's one thing I learned, it's that taxonomy is really fucking complicated and the biblical story of creation is so stupidly simple that most people just want to take the easy road. Granted, what I just said only really applies to creationists who are proven to be absolutely wrong and don't want to make the effort to understand their opposition. The main problem here is that creationists *have* to believe what their book says, they're not allowed to think otherwise. They're not making observations and making conclusions based off them, they're starting with a conclusion and try to justify it. Ultimately, it fails since all the scientific evidence points to the fact that their "conclusion" was a load of shit to begin with. But they can't accept that. Because of their dogma and religious convictions, they *can't* deny their obviously bullshit claim, whether they know it's bullshit or not. And, by extension, they can't accept the "opposing" theory of evolution. In the end, they feed themselves bullshit and convince themselves it's true despite all opposition.

There's a YouTube user named AronRa. He's quite popular among the atheist/rationalist crowd. I don't quite remember what exactly his background is, but he's an evolutionary biologist and knows the subject inside and out, sideways, slightly tilted, and splayed all over the wall, floor, and ceiling. In other words: *he knows his shit.* He has a number of videos on creationism and talks about this subject VERY often. Here's one for your viewing:

 

[Subscriptism]

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

I'm not so sure it's more certain than Newton's Law of Gravitation.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

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.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Neither. I acknowledge that Macroevolution is theoretically possible, but I subscribe to the idea that macroevolution is merely the effects of microevolution compounded over longer periods of time. Essentially I don't make the distinction "micro and macro" when discussing the term evolution, since macro is merely an extension of micro with time and scale being the only differentiator.

See my post on ring species on page 1 for whoever thinks Macroevolution is only theoretically possible.

Okay, I read it. What's your gripe? Nothing I said discounts or conflicts with the existence of ring species. My only conflict here is the terminology and usage of said terminology. Macro is better suited for categorising, while Micro is better for explaining these changes. Macro will show us that birds are descendants of dinosaurs, but Micro (attempts to) explains all the incremental changes in between.

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.

Then again, I'm not a scholar or a scientist and don't have ready access to documentation.

Because I don't consider the use of Macroevolution or Microevolution as being separate or conflicting subjects and just discuss "evolution" as a general topic, I might be confused about the terms use in scientific studies.

 

[Blade_125]

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.

I hope this was satire, but to the OP, here is your example of why people reject the theory. This is what some people actually believe and have no idea that isn't evolution.

 

[M920CAIN]

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.

But monkeys are special! In a special monkey kind of way.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

Skipping the thread because I know it will be full of religion-bashing.

My answer? Because many people believe that the choice is either that evolution is real, *or* God exists. And if your entire life is built around your religion, that basically means you ignore evolution right out, because you are never going to say that God doesn't exist. It also feels like an attack, as if people are trying to tear down your beliefs, when it is pitched that way.

You, over there, with the Darwin Fish parody of the Jesus fish: you are *not* helping. Things like this are part of the problem. It's basically saying, "Ha, ha, you believe in God, lol. Actually, God doesn't exist, and I'm going to rub in your face that science is trying to eliminate your religion," to these people. Please stop trolling the people you're trying to enlighten. ><

They're in fact completely orthogonal. Evolution is about how modern science works. Religion is about how the universe came into being, what our lives are about, and what we should live for. So on and so forth. (Saying this as both a religious person and someone who is confident that evolution is a real thing. I used to be very pissed about the concept of evolution until I wised up and realized it was mostly misconceptions and additional trollery.)

 

[Spearmaster]

I accept evolution as fact but I also don't believe that the current model explaining origin of species is accurate or complete and neither do the scientist that brought forth that model, that is why they are still digging, still discovering.

Anyone who lets a scientific theory of any kind be dictated to them and accepts it as 100% flawless fact when research is ongoing is just as ignorant as the people that believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

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.

 

[AMMO Kid]

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.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

who cares, who really cares
i am not the most religious person
you can call me agnostic, but jeez

if they want to not believe in evolution, no one gives a sh** the fact that your putting so much effort into this says that you have entirely too much time out side

go out side , meet a people, make friends, do something with your life

The reason people give a shit is that creationists want to take one of sciences most well tested and established theories, with heaps of evidence to support it, out of the science classroom and teach children an idea that has never been tested or observed. That is the goal of the majority of people who reject evolution and that makes it a genuinely important issue.