Why do people reject evolution?

[Syzygy23]

I'm a Christian, and I have no problems with evolution or it's supporting theories. It's a fairly logical system, one that could be working by design or be controlled. After all, if God is anything, he's a software engineer, I wouldn't put such feats beyond a being that can design an entire universe.

I could be grasping at straws trying to justify my belief here, though, who knows? If I'm ever presented with strong enough evidence that God never has, and could not possibly have existed (or currently exists) it wouldn't be any skin off my back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um, considering the sole reason we currently control the entire planet, and are capable of outright destroying it, rending it unable to support life if we so choose, I would say that we are indeed a "better" creature compared to everything else. Intelligence and the ability to manipulate your environment have been proven to be the only traits that matter, if the modern world is an example.

 

[Syzygy23]

(Accidental double post)

 

[Jess Honeycutt]

I don't think it is even a religious thing anymore. To my knowlege a lot of Religions have accepted evolution: The Catholic Church for example. Religion and Science are only in conflict if people want them to be. I think it is just some people a personal choice to ignore or poke holes in the THEORY and they won't change their minds unless someone invents a time machine and shows them how evolution works.

 

[Jess Honeycutt]

I don't think it is even a religious thing anymore. To my knowlege a lot of Religions have accepted evolution: The Catholic Church for example. Religion and Science are only in conflict if people want them to be. I think it is just some people a personal choice to ignore or poke holes in the THEORY and they won't change their minds unless someone invents a time machine and shows them how evolution works.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

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

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

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

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

Cool, thanks for the clarification. The more I talked about it here the more it wasn't adding up in my head. I claim to be no expert on the subject so I was open for correction.

 

[Raggedstar]

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

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

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

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

With dinos vs chickens, think about it this way. Obviously something happened to make the dinosaurs go bye-bye, whether meteor or something else. Something happened and the giant reptiles couldn't take it. That's why small animals like rodents and smaller birds or bird-like reptiles could survive better than a larger dinosaur. They can hide better, have a less demanding metabolism, some may be able to manage their own body temperature (mammals and birds), stuff like that. Their species couldn't handle the environment, so they died out when the less demanding organisms thrived.

And having a superior brain is a big deal. Creating weapons, strong family units, and complex strategies is a major asset, which eventually moved to creating technology and etc etc. We would be screwed if we didn't have the ability to make tools and such, but then again a spider would be screwed if it couldn't make a web or have a venomous bite. One vital asset to another vital asset.

Evolution isn't in one direction (start off as something crappy and after generations turn into something awesome and more awesome than before). There is no such thing as "de-evolution". Basically if something or some trait is better suited in an environment, it will live and pass on the good stuff to affect future populations. Anything that isn't will die off and become less common in the genepool. You see it in dogs too. Wolves (even in captivity) are more independent and will try to solve problems itself. Most dogs in comparison will often look to a human for instruction. It seems like we spent thousands of years to create the perfect idiot, but dogs looking for human instruction is important in the relationship between dog and master. Dogs follow commands and often aim to please. Oh, and then the fact that we turned one of the greatest predators of the wild into 5 pound yappers.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Um, considering the sole reason we currently control the entire planet, and are capable of outright destroying it, rending it unable to support life if we so choose, I would say that we are indeed a "better" creature compared to everything else. Intelligence and the ability to manipulate your environment have been proven to be the only traits that matter, if the modern world is an example.

If you think that humans can fill every niche that other animals do i would ask you to attempt to live in the baron deserts or under the ocean. Of course humans have this ability to force an environment to shape to what we are used to within our rather limited tolerances. Some creatures are more common but what im trying to say is that humans are rubbish fish. We cant live underwater even a billionth as well as the most basic undersea flat worm. We just lack the adaptations. No creature is the best in ALL arenas. Only one. Usually a fairly specific one. Youre right in saying our only ability of note is to shape our environment to BE that specific one. It still doesnt change the fact humans are shitty fish. Its just important to note that evolution will NEVER go above and beyond what is necessary to survive. The reason all creatures dont bristle with spikes and lethal weaponry with extreme intelligence is that they dont need to to survive in the world as it is now. Humans broke the mold by being the first to gain intelligence. Then we killed off all other species of neanderthal and have a monopoly on the intelligence niche. Thats pretty much why we have such an advantage.

 

[DarkSpectre]

Because the probable chance of an amino acid bond happening is less than the probable chance of it being broken from collision. The current theory of evolution as taught in schools is severely flawed and in big trouble scientifically. Also most information in said textbooks is out of date and incorrect.

 

[Quaxar]

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

Main one being is how evolution, if true, screwed so many animals over.. I mean.. if the raptor did evolve into a chicken, what sense is that? From the apex predator down to that.. If we follow evolutions plans and what not it's more like de-evolution.

Evolution doesn't "screw" anyone, it's not a conscious process. But let's ignore that as creativity. But there is also nothing like "de-(e)volution" because evolution is not and was never a one directional process of constant improvement but rather adaption to environmental conditions. If the climate gets cooler and food supply, especially meat, dwindles either there is an adaptation and selection for those individuals that may be smaller and therefor need less food or that might manage to metabolize more than just meat or the species gets extinct for example because the environmental changes were too drastic for them and killed them all off before there was a chance for sufficient selection.

I mean yea they've found different types of skulls and all that, but they also say that homo-saphien was a murdering bunch back when we were primal. maybe we just killed all that was there. If we did come from monkies, why? Monkies are hella strong and smart and agile. Put a monkey hand to hand with a man, 90% of the time the man will get his face eaten. (I mean like chimps and such, not those little spider monkies that throw poop)

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

Homo sapiens is a murdering bunch NOW, what's the issue there? And indeed maybe we did kill Homo neanderthalensis who lived at the same time as us during the ice age but that's a difficult topic.
Yes, a gorilla can beat me at arm wrestling but I bet you I can beat it at cluedo. You seem to be completely focused on physical strength... that's by far not as important as you make it out to be. If apes are so much better than we then why are WE the ones who stand outside in the zoo?

Please, try watching this video and THEN tell me what you think about evolution.
<youtube=USpT2nQnLbk>

Because the probable chance of an amino acid bond happening is less than the probable chance of it being broken from collision. The current theory of evolution as taught in schools is severely flawed and in big trouble scientifically. Also most information in said textbooks is out of date and incorrect.

You're mixing up the Theory of Evolution with <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis>Abiogenesis. Common mistake because it's a thing creationists love to do.
And maybe you should get better textbooks.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Um, considering the sole reason we currently control the entire planet, and are capable of outright destroying it, rending it unable to support life if we so choose, I would say that we are indeed a "better" creature compared to everything else. Intelligence and the ability to manipulate your environment have been proven to be the only traits that matter, if the modern world is an example.

If you think that humans can fill every niche that other animals do i would ask you to attempt to live in the baron deserts or under the ocean. Of course humans have this ability to force an environment to shape to what we are used to within our rather limited tolerances. Some creatures are more common but what im trying to say is that humans are rubbish fish. We cant live underwater even a billionth as well as the most basic undersea flat worm. We just lack the adaptations. No creature is the best in ALL arenas. Only one. Usually a fairly specific one. Youre right in saying our only ability of note is to shape our environment to BE that specific one. It still doesnt change the fact humans are shitty fish. Its just important to note that evolution will NEVER go above and beyond what is necessary to survive. The reason all creatures dont bristle with spikes and lethal weaponry with extreme intelligence is that they dont need to to survive in the world as it is now. Humans broke the mold by being the first to gain intelligence. Then we killed off all other species of neanderthal and have a monopoly on the intelligence niche. Thats pretty much why we have such an advantage.

I still don't fully get how we managed to swing that -_-, there were like 4-5 different variations competing and we somehow wound up with just Homo Sapiens making it even though Neanderthals were objectively at least as qualified to survive as we were (though the best theory we have, and also my favourite, is we reproduced faster and eventually just took all the territory. We literally boned the neanderthals to extinction)

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I still don't fully get how we managed to swing that -_-, there were like 4-5 different variations competing and we somehow wound up with just Homo Sapiens making it even though Neanderthals were objectively at least as qualified to survive as we were (though the best theory we have, and also my favourite, is we reproduced faster and eventually just took all the territory. We literally boned the neanderthals to extinction)

Thats pretty much what happened. Its the same reason intelligent creatures arnt really evolving now. The places where a creature similar to us can live already has us in it. Our cities DOMINATE the place where an intelligent being with the ability to shape tools would want to live. Large Brains are demanding in resources so a rich diet is needed. Thumbs are needed as are heavy brains which rules out fish and birds. Basically youre looking at some kind of mammal which needs open space to form a LARGE social group and the resources to make tools. Too bad we took up a LOT of that space. A LONG time ago we outboned, outclubbed and out expanded the neanderthal to take this space and habitat and now we own it. Nothing else can move in as long as we hold all the cards. For whatever reason we didnt feel like sharing and we won utterly driving a species extinct. Go team i guess?

 

[wulf3n]

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

One is an observable phenomena the other isn't.

You can show all the facts, papers, journals, text books, and fossils you want, but until a significant alteration to an organisms genetic code is observed propagating across it's species, a lot of people just won't buy in.

 

[Syzygy23]

Um, considering the sole reason we currently control the entire planet, and are capable of outright destroying it, rending it unable to support life if we so choose, I would say that we are indeed a "better" creature compared to everything else. Intelligence and the ability to manipulate your environment have been proven to be the only traits that matter, if the modern world is an example.

If you think that humans can fill every niche that other animals do i would ask you to attempt to live in the baron deserts or under the ocean.

It's "barren", and the middle east begs to differ. Also, submarines and sea labs are real things in case you had forgotten.

Of course humans have this ability to force an environment to shape to what we are used to within our rather limited tolerances. Some creatures are more common but what im trying to say is that humans are rubbish fish. We cant live underwater even a billionth as well as the most basic undersea flat worm. We just lack the adaptations. No creature is the best in ALL arenas. Only one. Usually a fairly specific one. Youre right in saying our only ability of note is to shape our environment to BE that specific one. It still doesnt change the fact humans are shitty fish.

I think you missed the point of my post. The fact that a human cannot survive underwater as well as a fish is irrelevant in the face of our intellect and technology. Can a fish catch humans en masse for food? No. Can humans catch fish en masse for food? Hell yes. So much so that we have to REGULATE our fishing industry so we don't drive certain species EXTINCT because we're so good at catching them.

Why do you think it's illegal to go hunting outside of specific "seasons"? Because we're so. Damn. Good. At. It.

EVERYTHING is our prey if we want it to be. Even WHALES, multi-ton sea mammals, are endangered both directly and INDIRECTLY by humanity.

We can destroy entire species without even trying.

Its just important to note that evolution will NEVER go above and beyond what is necessary to survive. The reason all creatures dont bristle with spikes and lethal weaponry with extreme intelligence is that they dont need to to survive in the world as it is now. Humans broke the mold by being the first to gain intelligence. Then we killed off all other species of neanderthal and have a monopoly on the intelligence niche. Thats pretty much why we have such an advantage.

And intellect has proven to be the only evolutionary trait that actually matters on this world, for my reasons stated above.

And this isn't even going into genetic engineering. We are getting dangerously close to the day that we will understand how to control the system of evolution itself. And then what? Hypothetically, we would no longer be challenged by any other form of life if we can forcibly insert traits into ourselves to further rocket us to the top of the food chain.

 

[Doug]

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

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

If you volatile it, the reality police drag you off to...somewhere. We think its hiding behind the Higgs-Boson. Hence, the search for it. If we destroy the prison, gravity need no longer bind us!

 

[Private Custard]

See this little fella.....

He's a mudskipper.....a fish that's entirely happy out of the water, breathing ordinary air.

This is a species that's literally right in the middle of a huge evolutionary change.

This is my argument in support of the theory of evolution, and I've used it at Speakers corner when I was lectured by a Christian for quite some time. My answer was simply "because, mudskippers".

The rest of the crowd seemed to like that answer!!

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I still don't fully get how we managed to swing that -_-, there were like 4-5 different variations competing and we somehow wound up with just Homo Sapiens making it even though Neanderthals were objectively at least as qualified to survive as we were (though the best theory we have, and also my favourite, is we reproduced faster and eventually just took all the territory. We literally boned the neanderthals to extinction)

Thats pretty much what happened. Its the same reason intelligent creatures arnt really evolving now. The places where a creature similar to us can live already has us in it. Our cities DOMINATE the place where an intelligent being with the ability to shape tools would want to live. Large Brains are demanding in resources so a rich diet is needed. Thumbs are needed as are heavy brains which rules out fish and birds. Basically youre looking at some kind of mammal which needs open space to form a LARGE social group and the resources to make tools. Too bad we took up a LOT of that space. A LONG time ago we outboned, outclubbed and out expanded the neanderthal to take this space and habitat and now we own it. Nothing else can move in as long as we hold all the cards. For whatever reason we didnt feel like sharing and we won utterly driving a species extinct. Go team i guess?

Given how much neanderthal DNA a large chunk of Western Europe has left in it's population I wouldn't feel too bad about it. Apparently our prolific boning campaign wasn't limited to just Sapiens. And Homo Floresiensis is believed to have lived until 12,000 years ago so they outlasted Neanderthals and probably died because their island was sitting on a f*&^ing volcano. Bonus, wiped out the Stegodon or 'Murder face' as I call them (also, back on topic, the Stegodon: If Evolution just weaponised everything elephants would be like them with 10 foot tusks)

On a more whimsical note, I'm still holding out for their being Mermen somewhere in the ocean. It's impractical, it's unlikely, but goddamn would it be cool.

 

[chuckdm]

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

I just wanted to take a moment to mention that, to date, there have been 3 revisions to the originally published Theory of Gravity. So we have four of those now. Don't misunderstand me - I totally agree with you about this, creationists and the like infuriate me to no end. Just thought, before you take the gravity comparison to a serious debate somewhere, you should know it's kinda a weak point.

I think the fact that, after over a century of digging up fossils, we still find more of them DAILY (seriously, I found a fucking trillobyte 2 weeks ago in my own damn yard while digging a hole to plant a tree. Not even kidding) is much stronger evidence than anything else. Books are written by people, and people have bias. This goes for both science books and religious books. But fossilized bones in the dirt? They have no bias, no agenda, and there's only one way to intemperate digging up a skeleton that doesn't match up with any currently living creature on the face of the whole planet.

But yeah, if you're up against any truly serious religion proponent, keep the gravity mention to yourself. Hint: the second and third versions said god causes it. Really.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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

One is an observable phenomena the other isn't.

You can show all the facts, papers, journals, text books, and fossils you want, but until a significant alteration to an organisms genetic code is observed propagating across it's species, a lot of people just won't buy in.

See this little fella.....

He's a mudskipper.....a fish that's entirely happy out of the water, breathing ordinary air.

This is a species that's literally right in the middle of a huge evolutionary change.

This is my argument in support of the theory of evolution, and I've used it at Speakers corner when I was lectured by a Christian for quite some time. My answer was simply "because, mudskippers".

The rest of the crowd seemed to like that answer!!

^ I'm just going to pair these two posts up and leave it at that.

Also, we really shouldn't focus too much on gravity, I just about understand how evolution works but gravity is still mostly lost on me (why isn't there a particle!? It makes no sense!)

 

[renegade7]

Because during the formative years they get told some crap about how God made everything and it's never explained how evolution works, and then when you do try to explain it properly the confirmation bias takes over for lack of logic.