Why do people reject evolution?

Recommended Videos

disgruntledgamer

New member
Mar 6, 2012
905
0
0
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. Why? I can't get my head around it, I can show you facts, papers, journals, text books, fossils, just evidence piled on-top of evidence and it's.

Nope Science is lying to us or my religious ancient book says different so it must be wrong.

Is it the fact that they don't understand it or that they don't want to understand it? It's gotten to the point now that even YEC have had to accept evolution to a certain degree and decided to rewrite the definition of Macro Evolution just to say it doesn't exist. Nothing and I mean nothing in biology that we've learned in the last 100 years makes sense without evolution as a whole NOTHING! The Theory of Evolution is as important to biology as the Theory of Relativity is to physics.

Food for thought.

Here if you're still confused about evolution




Edit: I'd like to mention that this is not a religious debate, if you reject evolution just because an invisible deity tells you to, we don't need to hear it. Creationism/ Intelligent design, are not science. They're not considered a theory or a hypothesis, and there is no debate going on in the scientific community on this topic, as nether of these untested ideas meet the criteria or was derived by the scientific method. For a better understand on why this is.

 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 31, 2010
7,170
143
68
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
We humans are prone to confirmation bias and that includes all of us, even those who consider themselves scientific or logical. Think about what happens whenever a study is produced that has a bearing on a controversial political position: those whose position's it will support will wave it triumphantly in their opponent's face whereas those whose position's it doesn't support will point out every issue or possible source of bias, or simply dismiss it as one study.

Considering this, it's easy to see how if a person bases their entire morality and world view around a single doctrine, in this case the bible, that it's very easy for them to dismiss even overwhelming evidence to the contrary as a conspiracy or flawed rather than change their world view. Add to that a "them vs us" mentality and people can easily get entrenched in their views, you see the same with AIDS or climate change deniers, or adherents to long ago failed political ideologies.
 

Redingold

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Mar 28, 2009
1,641
0
0
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.
 

Aglynugga

New member
Jul 25, 2010
116
0
0
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.
 

Quaxar

New member
Sep 21, 2009
3,949
0
0
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!
EDIT: Just making clear I changed my opinion on that statement
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.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,870
2,349
118
Oh God (it's an expression!)...do I really want to expose myself to this argument...? Sure, why not. I hate myself enough to get into a religious debate :)

Now this is the knowledge I have from high school. There is a very good chance that stuff has changed since then so if you're going to correct me, feel free, just don't be an ass about it. I'll go ahead and throw out there now that I am also a Christian since that seems to color these types of arguments.

There were always two forms of evolution that I recall; Micro (small changes and adapting to your environment) and Macro (a fish one day is born with legs and takes a stroll on to land) evolution. I have absolutely no problem with Micro evolution and have always believed in that but it's macro that I've always had an issue with. The idea that one day that a fish would grow legs and start walking around was always just silly sounding to me. All we have to go on Macro are fossils of mutated animals and the "missing link" (which is obviously missing; hence the name). Until we eventually witness in our life something that evolves that heavy-handed, I have a hard time believing that it actually happened.

EDIT: Please see post 13 before quoting me to explain the difference between Micro and Macro evolution. JoJo has already given me a nice run-down :) Thank you anyway to everyone who let me know the difference; JoJo just gets special mention since he was first to explain the differences.

If there is something else in my post you don't like, feel free to quote me but if it's just to explain Micro V. Macro, don't bother (that includes the "fish walking" thing since that was being used as an example of Macro evolution). Thanks :)

EDIT PART 2 (made at 7:24 Escapist time): Actually, you probably shouldn't quote me if you're looking for a debate. I have clearly demonstrated that I don't know shit about this topic and so I will not argue it on either side. It's a free country so I suppose you can quote me if you want but it's not going to do you any good :)
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
Partly because a lot of people don't understand the specifics of how natural selection works, and partly because the human consciousness is prone to search for justification and meaning behind it's existence. Accepting natural selection basically also means accepting that there is no higher meaning of life, and that the only reason we exist is as a result of a succession of genetic mutations proving to be more useful than their alternatives. This is not a satisfactory answer to the question 'Why am I here?' for a lot of people. It's kinda like your parents telling you you were an accident, only scaled up to the entire human race. So they reject it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, and look for other suggestions that give them a greater sense of purpose.
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 31, 2010
7,170
143
68
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
Aglynugga said:
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.
You are a brave man my friend.

tippy2k2 said:
Oh God (it's an expression!)...do I really want to expose myself to this argument...? Sure, why not. I hate myself enough to get into a religious debate :)

Now this is the knowledge I have from high school. There is a very good chance that stuff has changed since then so if you're going to correct me, feel free, just don't be an ass about it. I'll go ahead and throw out there now that I am also a Christian since that seems to color these types of arguments.

There were always two forms of evolution that I recall; Micro (small changes and adapting to your environment) and Macro (a fish one day is born with legs and takes a stroll on to land) evolution. I have absolutely no problem with Micro evolution and have always believed in that but it's macro that I've always had an issue with. The idea that one day that a fish would grow legs and start walking around was always just silly sounding to me. All we have to go on Macro are fossils of mutated animals and the "missing link" (which is obviously missing; hence the name). Until we eventually witness in our life something that evolves that heavy-handed, I have a hard time believing that it actually happened.
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 :)
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
tippy2k2 said:
There were always two forms of evolution that I recall; Micro (small changes and adapting to your environment) and Macro (a fish one day is born with legs and takes a stroll on to land) evolution. I have absolutely no problem with Micro evolution and have always believed in that but it's macro that I've always had an issue with. The idea that one day that a fish would grow legs and start walking around was always just silly sounding to me. All we have to go on Macro are fossils of mutated animals and the "missing link" (which is obviously missing; hence the name). Until we eventually witness in our life something that evolves that heavy-handed, I have a hard time believing that it actually happened.
You were taught wrong. What you're calling Macro Evolution (a sudden and extreme change in a species within a single generation, such as a fish being born with fully-formed legs and walking on land) is not a part of evolutionary theory. It's never really been a part of evolutionary theory (if the idea was ever accepted, it was before Darwin's time). Evolution does occur faster in some periods than others, but "fast" here is in geologic terms--the entirety of human history could be considered a "fast" event on that scale.

disgruntledgamer said:
Is it the fact that they don't understand it or that they don't want to understand it?
Both, depending on the person. There's a lot of misinformation out there about evolution (see above), and as a result a lot of people are going to reject it based on their incorrect knowledge. This is especially true when there are pressures to reject evolution. So if someone is part of a church that teaches evolution is false, and all their friends and family say it is false, then when the (incorrect)information they are taught lines up with this view they won't have a lot of motivation to question it.

There's also evidence that correcting a mistaken belief can actually result in the belief being held even more firmly. I forget the exact reasoning, though (I know it had something to do with repeating the incorrect claim, and also with people becoming defensive when challenged--if I remember later I can look for the source).
 

TehCookie

Elite Member
Sep 16, 2008
3,923
0
41
I think this belongs in Religion and Politics...

Not to mention you already answered it for yourself. There are a lot of crazy people out in the world, for your own sanity I'd avoid talking about things like that to them.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,870
2,349
118
JoJo said:
tippy2k2 said:
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.
 

Wyes

New member
Aug 1, 2009
514
0
0
Aglynugga said:
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.
In the event I decide to have children, what I want to teach them is to think critically, and be able to decide for themselves what they do or don't believe. It is my hope that they would use this to accept facts.

...I'm also not actually sure if you're trolling or if that's an accurate representation of your beliefs.


Others have explained well why people reject evolution. In particular, most religious people I've talked to about it (here religious meaning some kind of theist or deist) don't like the idea, because it somehow means they're not 'special' or 'important'. Of course, just because we don't like an idea doesn't mean that it isn't true.

For example, I don't like the idea that poor eating habits could make me fat, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true (no matter how in denial about it I may be).
 

Heronblade

New member
Apr 12, 2011
1,204
0
0
tippy2k2 said:
Oh God (it's an expression!)...do I really want to expose myself to this argument...? Sure, why not. I hate myself enough to get into a religious debate :)

Now this is the knowledge I have from high school. There is a very good chance that stuff has changed since then so if you're going to correct me, feel free, just don't be an ass about it. I'll go ahead and throw out there now that I am also a Christian since that seems to color these types of arguments.

There were always two forms of evolution that I recall; Micro (small changes and adapting to your environment) and Macro (a fish one day is born with legs and takes a stroll on to land) evolution. I have absolutely no problem with Micro evolution and have always believed in that but it's macro that I've always had an issue with. The idea that one day that a fish would grow legs and start walking around was always just silly sounding to me. All we have to go on Macro are fossils of mutated animals and the "missing link" (which is obviously missing; hence the name). Until we eventually witness in our life something that evolves that heavy-handed, I have a hard time believing that it actually happened.
A.) you're missing a huge number of stages there, such as the (very real) fish that developed thicker than normal bones in its fins to help push through thick aquatic vegetation, and the (also very real) descendant of the former fish that used its even more well developed limbs to crawl through bodies of water normally too shallow for its size.
B.) The "missing link" is missing in more than one way, it is a fabrication. The missing link has been found, and redefined, and found again over and over. There are more than enough transition fossils already around to show the change from ancestral apes to modern humanity (numbering in the hundreds last I checked, here's a few of the more important ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils) People who want to complain about evolution just keep moving the goal posts. At this rate, it seems that the only way for the "missing link" myth to die is if we found the remains of every humanoid to ever live, and frankly, I doubt that would be enough for some (even if all of said remains still existed, >99% of them do not)
C.) Microevolution and macroevolution are in reality the exact same thing. Macroevolution is nothing more than the changes of microevolution taken over thousands of generations, it does NOT mean that some random species gets born with brand new legs one day and goes to try them out. If you accept that species can make small changes from generation to generation, logic dictates that you must be willing to accept the possibility of greater changes occurring as a result of the small ones stacking up, which is the entire premise of evolution.

I've always been somewhat mystified about the huge fuss people put up over this. Hell, Darwin himself was a devout christian. He considered evolution to be a tool created and used by god, and was personally overawed at the opportunity to learn about it.
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 31, 2010
7,170
143
68
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
tippy2k2 said:
JoJo said:
tippy2k2 said:
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
 

Quaxar

New member
Sep 21, 2009
3,949
0
0
JoJo said:
Aglynugga said:
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.
You are a brave man my friend.
He's not brave but simply a troll, you can look at his posting record for that. Also, damn you other biology students for replying before I had a chance to type out my text. I'm having a big exam coming up with that being one of the major parts.

Let me at least say that what religion someone has doesn't necessarily matter. I personally don't really care if you're Christian, Buddhist, Atheist or part of that Shiva cult from Indiana Jones if you're willing to listen to explanations instead of dismissing it all because an old book or a mystic stone stolen from an Indian village tells you so. If the pope can agree with science then there is every possibility of accepting it yourself.
And please never listen to anything said by anyone who calls himself a "creation scientist". If you have ever seen a single Kent Hovind video and actually knew the topic he rambled about you'd understand why. For example he has his own little "theory of evolution(s)" where he also likes to throw in things like "stellar evolution"the formation of stars and planets, "chemical evolution"meaning, the evolution of hydrogen into higher elements or "cosmic evolution"apparently the evolution of time & space.
I could go further and talk a lot about this idiocracy but I think and hope we can all agree on this.
 

Dinwatr

New member
Jun 26, 2011
89
0
0
All we have to go on Macro are fossils of mutated animals and the "missing link" (which is obviously missing; hence the name).
Good to know my entire field of study isn't worth considering. We actually have far, far, FAR more fossils than most non-paleontologists realize, and many "missing links"--or, as they are properly known, transitional fossils. I've found one myself, and I'm not all that prolific a collector (salvage paleontology being what it is). And these are far more htan "mutated animals", for two reasons. First, we have transitional DYNASITIES of animals. We have more or less the full record from chordates with exoskeletons to terestrial tetrapods--and Phylum Chordata has one of the worst fossil records in Animalia. Bivalves, bryozoa, brachiopods, chrinoids, and the like have simply astounding fossil records. Second, we also have a tremendous fossil record of non-animal kingdoms, including plants and Protista (if you still accept it as a kingdom). Forams and the like represent some of our best ways of testing evolutionary theory.

Secondly, the "missing link" IS NOT MISSING. We've found any number of transitional forms between humans and the other apes. In fact, we found so many that Creationists can't agree on where the line is--it's all OVER the place! We've found so many of the steps between our last common ape ancestor and modern humans--and so many side branches--that to say there's still a missing link is to demand a level of completeness that cannot be provided even by the best family trees of the noblest families of humans.

The idea that one day that a fish would grow legs and start walking around was always just silly sounding to me
Good. Because it's ridiculous to me as well. No one in science has EVER proposed something so stupid as anything other than a straw-man caricature of an opponent's argument. The transition you're talking about here is enormously complex, and the subject of innumerable studies, but it generally goes like this: There are many types of fish. One type--the lobe-finned fish--have more robust fins than others, in a particular pattern (one proximal bone, two more distal bones, than a whole bunch of distal bones). Those limbs allowed them to hold their own weight. Fish had lungs at the time (swim bladders are actually modified lungs, not the other way around), and the combination was fortuitous, allowing them to spend time on land. This offered numerous advantages, and so the ones better able to handle land survived to have offspring. This happened for a long, long, LONG, long, long time. The ultimate result of this is the kangaroo rat, a creature that doesn't even need to drink--and the fact that I mentioned a Quaternary mammal should give you a sense of how long this takes. The REALLY cool thing is the "have more robust fins" part. What most of us would consider side-branches--those creatures that didn't become us, essentially--are still around, and are prolific.

As for the OP, that paragraph is actually relevant to it. It illustrates the problem with YECs and others who reject evolutionary theory: they don't bother to learn the evidence. Nothing I've said in that paragraph is new. Most of it has been known for at least two generations (one of my professors studied under Steven J. Gould, who wrote essays on this, so I have a pretty good line of evidence for that statement). Evolution is extremely well-demonstrated, but it's also one of the most complicated things a human brain can be wrapped around, and involves everything from plate tectonics to biochemistry to volcanology to engineering to, yes, fossils. And most people simply don't take the time to learn that evidence. Once you have, it's overwhelming--but if you refuse to do so, you can spout off nonsense to your heart's content, even to the point of not understanding what it is you're arguing against. And tippy2k2 isn't the worst I've seen--I once had a guy try to tell me Mosasaurs evolved into whales because they're both large, have anterior flippers, and lack posterior limbs. Ignorance is a wonderful way to support ideas. Actually finding the truth, however, requires you to get your hands dirty (and, if my current attire is any indication, arms and neck and face and shirt and shoes and pants and....).
 

burningdragoon

Warrior without Weapons
Jul 27, 2009
1,935
0
0
One of the strongest scientific theories to date, even stronger than the theory of Gravity

What? Now I'm no scientist or anything, but is this a real claim, or an exaggeration for effect? Cuz if it's the latter (and I'm thinking it is) then cut it out, it doesn't help you.

Edit:
<spoiler=to clarify, since I've been getting quoted a bunch> Though technically I said I think the claim is false, what I meant was since the topic claim is the theory of evolution is true (to the best of our knowledge) and people who disagree are dumby mcdumbfaces, using the claim that the theory of evolution is stronger than the theory of gravity without quantifying how you actually compare the strengths of a scientific theories. Is just knowing more about it mean it's stronger? Hypothetically, you could potentially know more about a subject simply because it's more complicated than others, but that wouldn't necessarily mean your knowledge of that subject is "stronger"

Is the fact that our knowledge of gravity is only "strong" until going subatomic or until getting into the why it works the way it does (note: things I already was aware of) enough to make evolutionary theory stronger? I dunno, I'm not a scientist, but I can accept that as a reason. That's not something expressed very well just by saying "it's stronger" though, which was my intended point.


Anyway, it's simple.

1: confirmation bias.
2: learning is hard.
3: pretty much no one likes to be proven wrong (see 2), especially on some core belief system.
and a very distant 4: the mistaken idea that evolution (automatically) disproves the existence of
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 31, 2010
7,170
143
68
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
Quaxar said:
JoJo said:
Aglynugga said:
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.
You are a brave man my friend.
He's not brave but simply a troll, you can look at his posting record for that. Also, damn you other biology students for replying before I had a chance to type out my text. I'm having a big exam coming up with that being one of the major parts.
*Checks post history* Damn you're right, that's honestly a shame, it would be nice to have more of a variety of views around this site. It'd make the debates more lively for one!