Why do people reject evolution?

[BiscuitTrouser]

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.

I think i did miss the point of your post, sorry about that. The fact of the matter is there are biological limitations on resources that compose our biology. Brains require a lot of resources to both grow and maintain. Inserting genes into us to make us too bulky or intelligent or have VERY large brains will put a large demand on food or oxygen supply that might not be possible to fill with our biology. I dont think its possible to make a person into a superman or rocket us to being perfect with genetic engineering just because on a resource scale we cannot intake or transport that much oxygen/nutrients to sustain a hulking body and a larger more intelligent oxygen hungry brain.

Youre right in saying that intelligence is probably the "Cheat sheet" of adaptions. We are sort of the exception because we stole the most important niche and now dominate it utterly. Speaking entirely of animals that ARNT us no animal is close to being "ideal". We sort of broke the system in a way which you evidenced well.

Also visiting places doesnt mean we are adapted to LIVE in them or THRIVE in them. We can visit the moon. Doesnt mean we can thrive in it. Much like we cant own the entire ocean. We simply cannot dominate the deep ocean or the driest dustiest deserts (the salt flats have no residents). No large human settlements exist there because insofar our technology cannot overcome the hurdle to allow us to survive there. Bacteria, animals and plants DO thrive there though. Our technology does allow us to cheat. But on a purely biological basis no creature is perfectly adapted for every environment. Its wrong to say a chicken is "Worse" than a raptor. Humans are the exception as you stated though.

I also made an appalling typo because i selected the wrong option on spell check. Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[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.

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!)

Have we actually seen the change though? are there mudskipper_As and mudskipper_Bs with minor genetic differences? something like the beginnings of back legs?

Now I don't disbelieve evolution, I don't fully believe it either. I do believe it's the best explanation that we have. But sometimes the arguments put forward by believers aren't as fool proof as they would like to believe.

 

[Doug]

Have we actually seen the change though? are there mudskipper_As and mudskipper_Bs with minor genetic differences?

Every mudskipper has a genetic difference in the same way every human has genetic differences from each other (aside from identical twins). Are the differences observable? If you're willing to examine a few and take detailed measurements because, lets be honest, one looks the same as another unless you're measuring them.

Also, they look slimey. Ew.

Edit:

Now I don't disbelieve evolution, I don't fully believe it either. I do believe it's the best explanation that we have. But sometimes the arguments put forward by believers aren't as fool proof as they would like to believe.

I personally don't know everything about evolution. In fact, I reckon no-one knows EVERY single facet of evolution, because the detailed working of it in the specific case of our biosphere are very complex. But to date, evolution has been able to withstand every scientific test it has so far been put too.

Our understanding of evolution is better than our understanding of gravity, and there is more evidence for it than the hypothesis of the workings of gravity and its weirdness (i.e. why is gravity so damn weak?). At least, thats what scientists have told me, and what opinions I have formed from looking at the theory, some of the evidence (because there is a vast amount of it and I freely admit to not having the patience or time to ever look at it all).

In short, I have more problems with the general theory of relativity in terms of its description of gravity than I do with evolution.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Have we actually seen the change though? are there mudskipper_As and mudskipper_Bs with minor genetic differences?

EDIT: Saw your earlier edit, the earlier concerns are unfounded and deleted.

So, Mudskippers are part of this family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goby and there are 18 variations of the species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper so it will take kindof a lot of effort to find but I'm sure someone could tell you what species they evolved from.

 

[Quaxar]

Have we actually seen the change though? are there mudskipper_As and mudskipper_Bs with minor genetic differences? something like the beginnings of back legs?

I suppose the argument from mudskippers was related to them being a transitional form between fish and land animals that a lot of people always claim don't exist and are unreasonable.
As another argument you could take this experiment from 1988 that basically was E.coli completely changing its metabolism to support a new environment despite there being no already present genes for that.

 

[Private Custard]

Have we actually seen the change though? are there mudskipper_As and mudskipper_Bs with minor genetic differences? something like the beginnings of back legs?

Mudskippers are part of the Gobie family (one of the largest families of fish). They don't have legs yet, but instead, move around on their pectoral fins.

Unlike other fish, that seek shelter if caught out of the water, they're actually quite active and territorial. At the moment, they're restricted to humid environments as, so far, they've only evolved to the stage where they can breath through the skin and mouth lining, as long as it's moist.

The important thing is their ability to survive without the need for gills, which is really amazing stuff

 

[frizzlebyte]

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.

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).

Very eloquently put. I would have said something similar, but now I don't have to.

I've pretty much just stopped thinking that evolution will be an easy subject to broach with most people. In my experience, the derp factor is off the charts most cases. Even among the college professors that I know, which is sad.

 

[darkstarangel]

This is not the first post on here thats asked the same question. Perhaps you should check those ones out & its replies.

However, im a YEC & I know that quite a few people do their research to understand the matter but alot dont understand the concept of it Thats why it has a lot of critics.

I personally never got the whole definition of the macroevolution concept, I understand it better as speciation since homologous recombination is the only method of producing such phenotypic variation on a macroscale. This is why the creation theory is having to be redefined. But the concept of one organism decending from a completely different organism is obviously rejected since, although may share a majority of genes, those genes are positioned on different loci on different chromosomes which also differ in number. These are obviously incompatible for breeding & so are different organisms. When I studied a human genetics units last semester there was virtually no account or explanation how a genome could go from to another, especially with the organism alive & intact & capable of producing viable offspring.

My point is, there are people who reject it because the evidence doesn't always fit the interpretation. You would do well to listen to them to expand your knowledge on the matter. But then again, I guess thats why your posting here.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Direct answer, delivered in a not too roundabout way, aiming mainly for the quick, spontaneous response?

Ooh, me likes this.

Top reasons:

1) Human stupidity and ignorance
2) Human stupidity and ignorance, firewalled by some holy scriptures from the millenium before last, when people were drinking blood, riding dinosaurs and enjoying alien teleportation technology to enjoy the good life on Atlantis.
3) Personal choice
4) Political agenda
5) Political agenda, amplified by stupidity, ignorance, personal choice and religious scripture
6) Wanting to be different
7) Having no brain or being unable and unwilling to make proper use of it

...that about sums it up, methinks?

 

[CrazyJew]

Because empirical evidence does not matter to some people.

[/thread]

 

[Balmong7]

There are a lot of pages on this. So I am just gonna ask the question and hope. Has there been any evidence of single cell organisms changing into multiple cell organisms? That is the one part of the Evolution vs Creation battle I am waiting for. My mind just cannot grasp that mutations required to switch from single cells to specialized cells without having the organism die, and then having that happen to enough organisms to allow for procreation before the sun burnt itself out. So I honestly want to know, has any evidence of this been found yet?

 

[Quaxar]

However, im a YEC & I know that quite a few people do their research to understand the matter but alot dont understand the concept of it. Thats why it has a lot of critics.

You too kudos for posting. I won't even start any debate there because I think both sides know their evidence and counters and personally I'm a little sick of it for today.

But the concept of one organism decending from a completely different organism is obviously rejected since, although may share a majority of genes, those genes are positioned on different loci on different chromosomes which also differ in number. These are obviously incompatible for breeding & so are different organisms. When I studied a human genetics units last semester there was virtually no account or explanation how a genome could go from to another, especially with the organism alive & intact & capable of producing viable offspring.

I'm curious what genetics course you attended because that is most basic stuff you missed. Genes can change due to flawed meiosis and mitosis. It's called <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translocations>Translocation and is actually fairly common and most of the time doesn't do anything. Not to mention that there is quite <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormality#Structural_abnormalities>a lot that can and will go wrong with the DNA all the time, sometimes it doesn't matter, sometimes it leads to problems and gets probably eliminated from the genepool and sometimes it may even be beneficial.
Comparing two species by DNA isn't a process of going base per base from start to end because we are well aware that genes jump around all the time.

There are a lot of pages on this. So I am just gonna ask the question and hope. Has there been any evidence of single cell organisms changing into multiple cell organisms? That is the one part of the Evolution vs Creation battle I am waiting for. My mind just cannot grasp that mutations required to switch from single cells to specialized cells without having the organism die, and then having that happen to enough organisms to allow for procreation before the sun burnt itself out. So I honestly want to know, has any evidence of this been found yet?

As long as I'm around... what's "evidence" for you?
We can say that for example every cell in our body is actually a symbiotic multicellular compound because when we look at it we see that there is a nucleus that holds the genetic information for the cell but then there's also the the mitochondrias that have their own membrane, their own DNA and their own reproduction cycle independent of the cell's. Same goes for a plant's chloroplasts (the part of a plant cell that does the photosynthesis), when we take that out it basically behaves like a cyanobacteria.
We also have various stages of cellular diversification in different animals which I personally would find more complex than a simple cluster of same cells that have bound together for a better survival.

 

[Wyes]

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.

Say what now?
Here's something cool about the universe; it's been around for a very long time. Similarly, the Earth has been around for 4ish billion years. Why does this matter? Because very unlikely events can occur given enough time. A simple example: I am not very good at darts, and thus I am not very likely to score a bullseye; however, if you give me 4 billion throws, suddenly it becomes very likely that I'll score at least one (if not a significant number of) bullseye(s).

That said, what you seem to be talking about is not Evolution, it is Abiogenesis, which is a whole different kettle of fish. I don't think any reasonably representative sample of scientists (in particular, biologists, really the only people who you should be asking) would contain a statistically significant number of people who thought that 'Evolution is in big trouble scientifically'. You did qualify this statement with 'as taught in schools', which may be correct in whatever education system you happen to be familiar with; all I can say is that at least here in Australia, what they taught us was simplified, but not 'in big trouble scientifically'.

 

[Arakasi]

There are a lot of pages on this. So I am just gonna ask the question and hope. Has there been any evidence of single cell organisms changing into multiple cell organisms? That is the one part of the Evolution vs Creation battle I am waiting for. My mind just cannot grasp that mutations required to switch from single cells to specialized cells without having the organism die, and then having that happen to enough organisms to allow for procreation before the sun burnt itself out. So I honestly want to know, has any evidence of this been found yet?

There are actually quite a lot of sexy theories on that, you should try reading The Selfish Gene if you want to find out more.
I'm actually suprised you decided to pick on that one as opposed to say, how life came from non-life.

 

[Balmong7]

There are a lot of pages on this. So I am just gonna ask the question and hope. Has there been any evidence of single cell organisms changing into multiple cell organisms? That is the one part of the Evolution vs Creation battle I am waiting for. My mind just cannot grasp that mutations required to switch from single cells to specialized cells without having the organism die, and then having that happen to enough organisms to allow for procreation before the sun burnt itself out. So I honestly want to know, has any evidence of this been found yet?

There are actually quite a lot of sexy theories on that, you should try reading The Selfish Gene if you want to find out more.
I'm actually suprised you decided to pick on that one as opposed to say, how life came from non-life.

How life came from non-life is something that cannot be proven. This on the other can be proven, and at some point probably will be.

Thanks I will look that up.

 

[gwilym101]

This is not the first post on here thats asked the same question. Perhaps you should check those ones out & its replies.

However, im a YEC & I know that quite a few people do their research to understand the matter but alot dont understand the concept of it Thats why it has a lot of critics.

I personally never got the whole definition of the macroevolution concept, I understand it better as speciation since homologous recombination is the only method of producing such phenotypic variation on a macroscale. This is why the creation theory is having to be redefined. But the concept of one organism decending from a completely different organism is obviously rejected since, although may share a majority of genes, those genes are positioned on different loci on different chromosomes which also differ in number. These are obviously incompatible for breeding & so are different organisms. When I studied a human genetics units last semester there was virtually no account or explanation how a genome could go from to another, especially with the organism alive & intact & capable of producing viable offspring.

My point is, there are people who reject it because the evidence doesn't always fit the interpretation. You would do well to listen to them to expand your knowledge on the matter. But then again, I guess thats why your posting here.

Recombination is one method of producing changes on a large scale. There are five others; mutation, selection, migration, gene flow and genetic drift.

I have to ask so I don't make assumptions but what was in your human genetics module, as I'm struggling to think of why a module focusing on one species would talk about how genomes could change between species. I'm guessing it would be about genes for specific traits or disease in humans but I could be wrong about what the module was about. I am however reasonable certain as it was only one semester it was four or five months long at most, that's nowhere near enough time to learn everything there is to know about evolutionary genetics.

Your argument do seem to revolve a bit around irreducible complexity or it might just be you haven't covered the relative topics yet and aren't commenting on something you haven't been taught yet. You are however claiming that as genomes are different between organisms and you can't account for it so this makes creationism the better theory. Despite the fact that evolution was written without any knowledge of DNA as it wasn't discovered until a hundred years later.

I disagree with this view point, and I do know some means by which genes can change loci between and on chromosomes and how species can get different numbers of chromosomes. I'm not an expert but one example, humans have 46 chromosomes or 23 pairs, other apes and monkeys have 48 chromosomes or 24 pairs. The reason we have one less is that two pairs fused together.

 

[Clueless Hero]

Because whether I believe it or not makes no difference to me or not. It doesn't define me as a person. I simply don't care.

 

[jodok]

Can't see if anyone has mentioned Kent Hovind, the criminal behind Dinosaur Adventure Land, but his conclusions on why evolution is stupid, is actually a pretty fun watch, and I can see how a person can take this kind of logic at face value with out taking a closer look and actually believe it. For a biology student it is especially fun to disprove his points. Plus his whole persona is hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk

here is his video, a long watch but worth it in my opinion...

Sorry if someone has already posted this, I haven't been through all the posts.

 

[Callate]

...Because they have a vested stake in believing something else.

And as long as someone is willing to step forward and say something in an authoritative manner, someone will believe them, and many more will be afraid to admit that they have their doubts.

That statement goes both ways and I totally agree with it. I've been around long enough to see scientists change their minds a few times. It saddens me that the "educated and enlightened" on this thread are just as close minded and dogmatic in their beliefs as the people they are arguing against. That's why we can't have nice things.

How do I put this.

I agree that it's important to keep an open mind to new possibilities. And I recognize that both scientists and those who follow their work (sometimes not as closely as they should) can be mistaken. And believe it or not, I'm really not especially inclined towards strict, knee-jerk anti-theism.

But I have to flatly reject the idea, as comes up so often, that there's a strict equivalency in both sides, neither of any more worth in any field. There is a difference between a Theory and a catechism, both in application and, to some extent, in intent. A scientist whose findings don't meet up with reality can expect to have their results challenged if their results aren't repeatable in further experiments; a member of the clergy whose dogma doesn't mesh with reality isn't likely to be challenged at all. Challenging an existing model in science is part of the process, and can lead to breakthroughs and names being made. Challenging a religious doctrine can lead to accusations of heresy, excommunication, and schism.

It's one thing to hold a personal faith, and hold it with both the strength and the flexibility to credit the possibility that it is the believer's understanding of reality that is flawed, not the deity who inspires that belief. It's quite another to decide without warrant that because of faith, a technique like carbon dating that shows every indication of being a helpful gauge of certain real things simply doesn't apply.