Why do people reject evolution?

[texanarob]

There is no debate within the scientific community? The head of genetics in my university believes in creation. Is he not a scientist? My head of flight mechanics believes in creation, is he not a scientist?

No Creation is a religious view, Evolution is a scientific view. I'd would also like to ask what University and whats the name of your professor.

If you limit the scientific community to only include those in agreement with yourself, then you will obviously end up with a single minded community.

99% of the scientific community accept evolution and reject creation (look it up) That's not limiting yourself.

There are thousands of articles published for peer review, and sufficient material that coverage in schools would be feasible.

Find me one.

And I would propose the thought that both sides have evidence, only one can have facts. Both sides also require huge amounts of faith, wither in God or man's current, ever changing opinions. Which brings me to the ancient texts, which have made many outrageous claims, whether scientific, historical or prophetic, and have yet to be disproved on any topic.

1. No you just can't propose something and expect people to believe it's true. Every single fact and so called evidence that creationists have put forward has been refuted and/or debunked. Science does not require faith or use opinions. If a scientist tried to pass off an opinion as a fact or theory based off of faith he would be laughed at. This is not how science works.

2. No once again Science has falsified many biblical claims for instance.

As I initially said, this argument has went on for 12 pages because it is a debate between two incompatible theories based on incompatible outlooks on life and incompatible starting points. No agreement or solution will be found, and I am therefore leaving the thread.

No. Creationism isn't a theory, it can't even be considered a hypothesis. If you think creationism is a scientific theory you don't know what a theory is. This topic has gone of for 12 pages because people either don't have a firm grasp of evolution and don't understand it, or they don't want to because it contradicts their ancient book. A lot of times creationist will either distort evidence or simply lie to try and defend their position.

Listen you seem like a nice guy so I'm going give you some advice, the next time your YEC proffers tell you about some study that proves creation ask for the source and read it yourself, because you'll find that more often than not they either don't say what what the person was claiming, or it says the exact opposite.

Queens University of Belfast. Professor Norman Nevin.
Please provide a source for your statistics, because 45.3% may be made up on the spot, but 99% are invented to suit a belief (and rather unimaginative too)
Do your own research. Regardless of what I post you will claim it isn't published in a journal you respect.
Any conclusion reached by man is based on his own biases in interpretation of data. Faith is defined as a belieef in something. All scientists have faith in their own work. I am fed up explaining faith to those who do not understand the terminology. Faith and blind faith are different, and I don't respect the latter.
Disproven the flood? Good luck. I'll admit I didn't watch the video. I might some time it isn't 2.30am, but I'm guessing amounts of space, water and time were all disputed?
Both arguments are equally valid, and are both theories in the standard vocabulary. To claim it isn't even a hypothesis is simply arrogant. Similarly, you are the one who insists on using the strawman argument of contradicting our 'ancient book'. Similarly, I believe your faith in evolution is merely an attempt to rationalise creation and therefore to excuse your lifestyle without judgement from a creator. However, I argue this case with shared logic and i would appreciate if you didn't pass me off as some uneducated stubborn fundamentalist nut. You have offended me sir.
Find me an example of a creationist lying to defend their position. That would also directly contradict the commands of their 'ancient book' and would thus be hypocritical.
You seem like a patronising guy so I'm simply gonna say that I did my own research on this topic and came to my own conclusions through reading, checking sources and reading more. I then met others who shared my viewpoint. So the next time you decide to criticise, know your opposition and check your own sources, and try to use less antagonistic wording.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

That wasn't my point. My point was simply that macro evolution is so far beyond the scope of anything we are trying to achieve for practical application that it shouldn't provoke this reaction from people unless there was something more behind it. Admittedly, far too many people make up their facts to discredit evolution, but both sides have ignorant opinionated fools, otherwise I wouldn't hear people saying there was no evidence for creation and that there is no debate.

But we do have practical application for macro evolution, and there is no debate. The vast overwhelming majority of the scientific community accept evolution and reject creationism because there is no evidence for creationism.

Creationism is a religious view and has as much evidence as any other of the 240+ religions out there, NONE. Evolution on the other hand is one of the strongest scientific theories that has withstood over 100 years of rigorous testing and has only become stronger because of it. Fact.

 

[RandV80]

As I go to a Christian school, I daily get to be treated to teachers, students, and other staff painting evolution as a falsity believed only by heretics. The arguments I've heard are mainly backed by any combination of the following three points.

A.) Evolution's status as a theory rather than a law

B.) The Bible saying that the earth and all its life was created in seven days

C.) The supposed impossibility of some vital organs (e.g. the heart) to change at all without killing the host body

The first is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that the definition of a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". A lot of people tend to place theories on the same ground as hypotheses and claim that they're just wild guesses backed up by no sort of proof whatsoever. Consequently, I die a little inside every time I hear someone utter the phrase "it's just a theory".

The second argument cannot be rebutted in my experience. Any attempt of saying that the Bible is not accurate, regardless of the importance of the issue being questioned, is immediately met by a resounding chorus of "but it's inspired by God and is thus absolute truth in everything and if you don't understand that it's because you don't have God's Spirit inside you".

And I'm not so sure I understand the final argument. I've never claimed to completely understand evolution, but I'm pretty sure the main point is that it takes place in extremely small changes over incredibly long periods of time, and these changes are mostly suited to benefit the creature in their dealings with the environment. I can't see any merit in the idea that an organ evolving, even a bit, would kill the creature it was located inside.

In the end, though, most people who reject evolution believe in creation by some sort of omnipotent deity. As a result, it is nigh impossible to argue against their beliefs because they are backed by something which transcends human thought and reasoning.

In my opinion B is not only easily refuted but also the key link towards an understanding between Christianity and Evolution.

Let me explain. So it goes something like "On the first day, God said let their be light!" or whatever. We humans measure a day by the time it takes for the Earth to make one revolution. But what exactly would be a 'day' for God, especially if there was no Earth yet to measure it by? The real kicker is this isn't a failure in logic, it's a failure in translation. In what the English Bible calls a 'day' in the book of Genesis, from the original Hebrew the word is "yom". Yom means many things, and is translated into a number of different words through out the bible. A more correct translation for it here would be "an indeterminate amount of time".

This is what Darwin was about, he wasn't challenging God, he was challenging the literal interpretation of the Bible. The account of creation in the bible is essentially a parable, whether or not the account was given by God or someone just made it up it's not like people of the day would have been able to comprehend the true account of evolution.

 

[Asita]

There is no debate within the scientific community? The head of genetics in my university believes in creation. Is he not a scientist? My head of flight mechanics believes in creation, is he not a scientist?

To be perfectly blunt, that depends on a variety of factors, not the least of which are his actual qualifications. I say this because various organizations have - for a while now - been making a concentrated effort to bypass educational standards for the specific purpose of artificially creating confederates to their cause. This was most famously exemplified in the ICR's "Wedge Document", which in no uncertain terms pointed to their motives and methods in doing so.

If you limit the scientific community to only include those in agreement with yourself, then you will obviously end up with a single minded community.

Let's put it this way...There have been various signings held to express 'dissent from darwinism', signed by various scientists. Invariably, the great majority of the signators were from fields unconnected to biology, signed by people who flat out admitted when questioned that their reasoning was religious rather than scientific, and several of whom claimed the people who had collected their signatures had misled them as to what they were signing. Furthermore, it's worth noting that parodies of such survey rapidly collected more signatures exclusively within relevant fields than the creationist documents they were parodying. Case in point: The Discovery Insitute's "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" collected 761 names (from a definition of scientists broad enough to include park rangers) over a 7 year period (2001 to 2008), with around 20% having been from relevant fields of study. For the sake of comparison, a counter-petition was formed (A Scientific Support for Darwinism), spread only by word of mouth and ended 4 days later, with 7,733 signatures, 68% of which were from biology related fields. Again, that was over a 4 day period without funding or advertising. By a similar token "Project Steve" (solely consisting of scientists named Steve (or a variant thereof) who accept evolutionary theory) acquired 800 signatures within a 4 year period (2003-2007). Today, it holds over 1200 signatures, 51% of which are biologists.

Can you find scientists who speak out against evolution? Sure, but for the most part their expertise is questionable (If memory serves, the scientific discipline creationists are most common in is mechanical engineering), and those that actually champion Intelligent Design/Creationism are generally very unabashed about their motivations being unscientific in nature. Furthermore, it's worth noting that despite creationist claims to the contrary, creationism does not make up any kind of significant minority within the scientific community. Statistically, in the US alone (which has one of the highest rate of biblical literalists in developed nations), creationists make up roughly 0.15% of scientists in relevant fields. In other developed nations, the rate is closer to 0.1%.

And I would propose the thought that both sides have evidence, only one can have facts. Both sides also require huge amounts of faith, wither in God or man's current, ever changing opinions. Which brings me to the ancient texts, which have made many outrageous claims, whether scientific, historical or prophetic, and have yet to be disproved on any topic.

...To be blunt? The text you're referring to as 'error-free' (to paraphrase) identifies bats as birds, insists that rabbits chew cud, insists that you can affect a sheep's offspring by manipulating what they look at during copulation, says that insects (including grasshoppers) have four legs, claims the earth is immobile, and consists largely of poetry, songs and allegory.

 

[likalaruku]

Tons of people don't like to think & they don't like change & they don't like theories that change constantly because it means the answers aren't definite & today's truth is tomorrow's myth. These lazy types want instant answers that stay the same forever & don't require them doing any kind of fact checking or research. They think to themselves "Why chase the wayward hare of evolution when the tortoise of creation runs in a straight line & is easy to catch?"

 

[Quaxar]

Oh wow, it is really difficult to understand a post with so many quote issues. No offense, I know that can happen but it makes it a lot more confusing and actually me look like a YEC... anyway, I'll try to sort that out, no worries.

1. I don't care about Darwin. Evolutionary theory was about before him and has changed so drastically since him that he is essentially irrelevant to this discussion, unless we are dealing with any Darwinists, who essentially worship the man. If he has been misquoted then I apologise on behalf of my fellow believers. That still doesn't make the quotes about the crocaduck an accurate representation of what was being said.
2. This point refers to the evolutionary trees shown in the initial video. Amazing how things can look complete and alike when simplified to animation.
3. You didn't really address my point, but I'll address yours. Basic logic tells us that simple things come from simple forces, complex things are designed by intelligent forces.

1. Misquoting Darwin was just an example of how the same mechanism is applied by creationists. Evolutionary theory in its current proper form wasn't really much present pre-Darwinian, certainly not taken seriously. The prevailing rationalisation of fossils before Darwin (and Wallace who came to the same conclusions independently and at around the same time) was <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism>Catastrophism (basically an extinction-improved creation cycle).
2. I still don't really see your point. Those trees of life are merely graphical charts of evolutionary relations, they are not claiming to include every fossil.
3. I didn't adress your original point because it's not really much of a point, if anything more of a personal attack at science. We do have overwhelming evidence to back up what is claimed, your "point" sounds like evolution is a guess as good as anything.
And for adressing that new point: how complex would you say is any "intelligent force" if it can create the whole universe from nothing? And why is it that you get to make a special case for this complex designer and say that it is the only thing that does NOT need any higher force? Basically, following your "basic logic" either there is an infinite number of higher intelligent forces or you are simply making an excuse for one complex thing without a cause while invoking the impossibility of any other complexibility sans design.
If you can imagine a complex god without a creator why can't you imagine a complex universe without one?

Genesis, Revelation, yeah. I believe the whole book.
Older than the book of beginnings? That could take some explaining. I would add, though, that Genesis seems the only theory that matches scientific discovery, hence my belief.
Alright, forget the age thing. I'm sure I could come up with some kind of babylonian creation myth most definitely preceding judaism but we don't need to bother with that.
Genesis simply does not "match scientific belief", it is interpreted and twisted to match known facts. On the other hand it even directly contradicts science. Just one example: Leviticus 11:22-23
<spoiler=King James Version>22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Either locusts have evolved more legs since the creation or the bible is clearly fallible.
But I'm willing to hear your side of the evidence.

And anyway, if you haven't had a look at other creation myths around the ages and compared them to scientific discoveries how can you say that we didn't all get created by Prometheus out of boredom?

For those looking the video in question, it's actually on page 10.
Sorry, my mistake. Too many new posts in the meantime.

My point was I could make a similar video about how one object could turn into another, as they have similar parts. However, that doesn't make it so. The video referenced involves concepts such as sensors, curvature, lens formation and pinholes as though these were simple ideas that could easily mutate. However, we all know that these parts must be balanced carefully to be beneficial, and would also require the relevant nervous system and brain recognition to develop alongside them. The odds are starting to look less plausible.
I'm totally with you on the videos, that's why we have movies like Independence Day but it doesn't mean that we got attacked by aliens. On the other hands we have documentations etc. where we actually have factual evidence behind what is depicted.
You still do not understand the evolutionary process. Mutations aren't "easy", neither are beneficial ones occuring often and frequently but if it happens over thousands of generations under the influence of natural selection the odds go up highly. See, this is why I asked if you were young or old earth creationist, because if you have the mindset that the earth is merely 6000 years old you really have difficulties grasping small gradual changes over tens and hundreds of thousands of years.

To clarify, my other posts deal with differing views on what constitutes macro evolution. That wasn't my point. My point was simply that macro evolution is so far beyond the scope of anything we are trying to achieve for practical application that it shouldn't provoke this reaction from people unless there was something more behind it.
We like to use artificial macroevolution for quite a lot. Someone in the thread has already brought up the nylon eating bacteria that couldn't have been designed for that because nylon was only invented recently but there's also the fact that we have gotten bacteria to create bioplastic, etc. The OP is apparently a fully studied microbiologist so I'll better leave that topic to him, I don't even have my Bachelor yet.

As far as coming off harsh goes, I've had a lot worse responses from a lot angrier people. I only hope I come across as trying to explain my opinion, rather than as the argumentative git I often seem to when I reread these posts later. If that is the case, I'll borrow your excuse and blame the fact that it's 2.23am.

Nah, you're fine.

 

[BrassButtons]

To claim it isn't even a hypothesis is simply arrogant.

Creationism isn't a hypothesis. It doesn't meet the criteria. Hypotheses must be testable, which means they must be falsifiable. There must be specific conditions which would require you to say "ok, nope, this hypothesis is wrong." Since Creationism can always use the "God did it" argument to explain any scenario, it can't be falsified (and thus any tests would be meaningless). So even if Creationism is correct it can't be a scientific hypothesis, and if it can't be a hypothesis it certainly can't be a theory.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Queens University of Belfast. Professor Norman Nevin.

Ah yes I've heard of him and I've seen him be debunked and forbidden to teach creation, because and this is a quote.

"Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory" the Department claimed "and is therefore not included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information pack is not therefore an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum."

I wonder why that is......

Please provide a source for your statistics, because 45.3% may be made up on the spot, but 99% are invented to suit a belief (and rather unimaginative too)

Well I might have jumped the gun on that, it wasn't 99%. It was 99.85%

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoCreationScientists.html

Do your own research. Regardless of what I post you will claim it isn't published in a journal you respect.

So in other words NONE! Through this entire thread I've provided, links, videos, journals and papers to back up my claims. You along with every other creationist here has provided nothing! You said it yourself there are supposedly thousands of peer reviewed research papers that support creationism and you can't find me one in a credible scientific journal?

Telling me to go find something to support your claim when I'm insisting there isn't any is a pretty weak argument.

Any conclusion reached by man is based on his own biases in interpretation of data. Faith is defined as a belieef in something. All scientists have faith in their own work. I am fed up explaining faith to those who do not understand the terminology. Faith and blind faith are different, and I don't respect the latter.

You're taking faith out of context, having confidence in your work and faith in a supernatural being that created everything are two completely different thing. Look up faith in the dictionary, you will find 2 definitions.

Disproven the flood? Good luck. I'll admit I didn't watch the video. I might some time it isn't 2.30am, but I'm guessing amounts of space, water and time were all disputed?

Nope not even close. Watch the video if not why even bother commenting on it?

Both arguments are equally valid, and are both theories in the standard vocabulary. To claim it isn't even a hypothesis is simply arrogant. Similarly, you are the one who insists on using the strawman argument of contradicting our 'ancient book'.

No they're not equally valid and to claim creationism is a theory or a hypothesis is simply ignorant of what a scientific theory or hypothesis is. And no it's not a straw man because your basing your conclusions on this ancient book, you even told someone to go read it to get a better understanding of how the world was created.

Similarly, I believe your faith in evolution is merely an attempt to rationalise creation and therefore to excuse your lifestyle without judgement from a creator.

Well isn't this ironic, first you accuse me of using a straw-man which actually wasn't only to throw a classic example of a straw-man in my face. You brought this up before like it's supposed to mean something to me. Even if I were to pick a religion it wouldn't be christianity, and not all religions have a divine creator.

Are you sure I'm the one looking for excuses to side with 99.85% of all scientists on evolution and it's not just you who's looking for an excuse to side with creation from not only lack of evidence, but despite of the evidence?

Find me an example of a creationist lying to defend their position. That would also directly contradict the commands of their 'ancient book' and would thus be hypocritical.

Do I only get 1? Well I suppose it's better off as I doubt there is enough bandwidth on this site to show them all here.

There is actually an award given out every year called the Golden Crocoduck which is awarded to the creationist with the biggest breach of the 9th commandment.

Why he was nominated


And his award ceremony

You seem like a patronising guy so I'm simply gonna say that I did my own research on this topic and came to my own conclusions through reading, checking sources and reading more. I then met others who shared my viewpoint. So the next time you decide to criticise, know your opposition and check your own sources, and try to use less antagonistic wording.

Well maybe you should try reading more than genesis.com and creationwiki before you start telling people creationism is a valid theory because it's not, that's why it's not taught in schools. Find me once incidence where I didn't check my sources. You see I a actually provide sources to back up my claims unlike some people.

in conclusion Creationism is a religion, Evolution is fact DEAL WITH IT!!!

 

[Lonegunman3]

From now on every time you hear someone say "Evolution is just a theory." think of, or tell them, this quote "Whenever I hear someone say 'Evolution is just a theory, so it can't be right' it gives me hope. If evolution can't be right because it's just a theory, then maybe gravity can't be either, and maybe all the creationists will just float away."

Also, for f***'s sake people, evolution is not implying that chimpanzees are the ancestors of humans, it implies that they had a common ancestor (which is over millions of years old). This common ancestor split into many different branches. There is no specific "goal" for evolution, it is simply a process for survival, similar to eating or cognitive thought, but on a much larger scale. If you want your evidence for evolution, then look at corn. Corn used to be only as long as your finger, and about as wide as your thumb. We specifically bred the largest varieties of corn, and let the others die off. Evolution works much in the same way, keep the strongest traits and let the weakest members of the species(the ones without the trait), die off

Finally, I wish I really didn't have to say this, but only 41% of Americans actually don't know this ( something I find particularly pathetic, and I can't help but hope that one of those people might read this post) Humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs.

 

[Redhawkmillenium]

The definitions you point to are not the actual definitions used. Responding to the last part first, the colloquial sense of the 'theory of evolution' extends it far beyond its reach. Evolutionary theory refers exclusively to the change in organisms over generations. The origin of life itself is a separate matter known as "Abiogenesis", and planetary formation itself is a matter for many fields (geology, astrophysics, chemistry, etc) but Biology is not among them.

Yes, I'm aware of that, and that abiogenesis is the technical term used for the origin of life. That's why I specifically said "colloquial" (perhaps I should have said "common conception"), because evolution and the origin of life usually go hand in hand in the public mindset.

Additionally, the claim of our inability to test/observe evolution is wildly overstated largely due to a misconception that testing must be conducted in a lab or in-real-time. Truth be told, while such testing is very useful, it is far from required. At its core testability only requires that you be able to predict results with a reasonable level of accuracy. Mind you, a prediction does not have to be of a future event, but can take the form of piecing together the past, much as is the case with the Forensic Sciences we employ to catch criminals. And Evolution certainly isn't lacking for predictions like that.

Evolution makes the prediction that animal populations can adapt to their environments over time, and that's certainly observable. It also makes the prediction that larger changes can happen, like reptile populations turning into mammals, which we haven't seen happen.

If you say that predictions can take the form of piecing together the past, wouldn't that allow ID and creationism to make predictions, since they are used to "piece together the past"? That in itself isn't a claim that they successfully make predictions, just that they can make predictions.

As per the 'no supernatural' bit...that's a foundational rule of logic in general. One cannot assume that your observations are due to a force that by definition exists outside our means of comprehension. At the risk of seeming snide, invoking the supernatural is quite literally to suggest that we stop searching for answers because one (or more) people suggest that we can't understand it. Cultural bias aside, there is no qualitative difference between "Jimmy is sick because he's possessed by a demon", "Jimmy is sick because God is angry at him", "Jimmy is sick because Ms. Frizzle cast an evil spell on him", and "Jimmy is sick because he's allergic to his best friend Harvey, the 6'3.5" invisible rabbit". The very reason that we've succeeded as well as we have in the world is because we do NOT go around insisting that things fall because some intelligent undetectible force wills them towards the ground, that there's a physical reason for the combustion that powers our engines, and that chemistry is not some mystical magical study, but has predictable results based on how various elements interact with one another. This is not to say that a man cannot be religious, mind you, but that the assumption of the supernatural as the solution to a problem is exceptionally rare and in practice is usually reviled even among the religious due to its equally exceptionally poor track record (see faith healing as a primary form of medicine as a case in point).

Whoa now. First, it's not a foundational rule of logic. It's foundational to science, but not logic. All logic starts with unproven assumptions; science, for example, assumes that the universe will always act in the same way under the same circumstances. Secondly, I'm not assuming that the observations are necessarily caused by a force that is outside our means of comprehension.

Now, invoking the supernatural in a sense does mean that there is no need to look for an answer, but that's because in my view it's a question that has already been answered. This does not mean I invoke the supernatural to explain everything and thus in my view science falls apart, but that I settle for the supernatural answer when my faith would lead me to it. I have other reasons to believe my faith is true, and my faith leads me to believe certain things about the origin of the universe. I do not view the naturalistic history of the world to necessarily be evidence in contradiction of my faith, but simply an alternate way of understanding the world's history. One which I do not see a reason to believe instead of my faith. In cases where my faith does not lead to a supernatural reason for something, then I'm all for science having at it to explain it.

Moving back to the earlier point though about macro/microevolution, I actually had a post earlier in the thread about that which might help to clarify a few things. Let me just go ahead and quote it.

Ok, sure. That's microevolution. You are still working with text, the characteristic of its color has just changed.

Whatever you want to call it, the proposed naturalistic history of the world necessitates new genetic information being added at some point. If you take the entire genetic information from a population of fish, and shuffle it around as would be possible through natural reproduction, you are not going to get a lizard. No matter how much you shuffle. You can get a whole lot of different kinds of fish, but unless you add genetic information to that population you are not going to get something resembling a reptile. The theory of evolution predicts that such changes should be necessary in natural circumstances, but scientists have yet to observe such a change and confirm that prediction.

To use your example, let's say you have a word processor with a set amount of colors and characters. You can shuffle those colors and characters around. You can make all sorts of images using those characters and colors. But, can you make an independently moving 3D image just by using the word processor? No. The word processor simply doesn't have the programming and information stored to do such a thing. Macroevolution, punctuated equilibrium, whatever you want to call it, cannot reach such a drastic change using only the information it starts with.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Whatever you want to call it, the proposed naturalistic history of the world necessitates new genetic information being added at some point. If you take the entire genetic information from a population of fish, and shuffle it around as would be possible through natural reproduction, you are not going to get a lizard. No matter how much you shuffle. You can get a whole lot of different kinds of fish, but unless you add genetic information to that population you are not going to get something resembling a reptile. The theory of evolution predicts that such changes should be necessary in natural circumstances, but scientists have yet to observe such a change and confirm that prediction.

Wrong for the last time we have OBSERVED macro evolution in the laboratory. It's seriously like I'm talking to a wall, and no fish can never turn into reptilians they're on 2 different evolutionary paths.

"In 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve. Since then, the bacteria have been growing under carefully controlled conditions in a culture containing low concentrations of glucose and high concentrations of citrate. Under oxic conditions (that is, when oxygen is present), E. coli cannot grow on citrate and ?that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species.? Many traits were observed changing over time. Creationists dismissed these changes as micro-evolution. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability.

Each population experienced billions of mutations in the first 30,000 generations. Since every possible point mutation was tried many times, scientists were either looking at a rare mutation (such as a large piece of DNA inverting) or a mutation made possible by the cumulative mutation history of prior generations. If this was just a rare mutation, then a sample of bacteria taken just before the trait first appeared would be no more likely to evolve the trait again than a sample taken from the other populations at the same point in time. However, if the ability to use citrate was from an accumulation of ?micro-evolutionary? changes, then a sample from earlier generations of the E. coli would be able to evolve the ability to use citrate again.

Fortunately, the scientists had frozen samples of each population every 500 generations. Sure enough, when they revived earlier samples, they watched the citrate-growing ability evolve in the ?micro-evolutionary? line, but not from samples taken from other lines.

We know that in one population, a series of changes that happened between the 15,000th and 20,000th generations laid the groundwork for a major evolutionary advance. Here we have a clear example of macro-evolution under carefully controlled laboratory conditions."

Source http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/

 

[wulf3n]

Questioning, when it's done in cases like these, can also lead to scientific retardation.

wow, you've just written the stupidest statement I've ever come across.

Heh. Welp, that's your prerogative. I seriously doubt this is anything more than hyperbole and an attempt to deflect as our friend Nimza, though.

As a slight correction, I meant questioning like this in cases like these.

correct all you want but anyone that thinks questioning is bad, is just wrong.

 

[Faraja]

Why do people reject the theory that says the universe came from essentially nothing, that everything that happens it coincidence, that we are only here by happenstance, that our behavior is largely pre-programed, that our lives will ultimately amount to nothing, and that we will all return to nothing?

Sounds kind of blink when you actually think about it.

 

[DanDeFool]

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.

This, unless you were being ironic. Or a troll.

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

I understand how evolution works. But I don't deny the presence of a higher power. Apparently it's impossible to understand or believe both.

And the countdown to Quotes that say "You're stupid for believing in religion, blah blah blah!" come up......

The way I see it, the alternative is that we were created to be unwitting pawns in an intergalactic dick-measuring contest between God and Satan, 99.9% of us are going to be condemned to everlasting torment, and nothing we do on earth has any real significance anyway because God thinks we all suck, and could just get rid of us all in a second if he really wanted to.

I feel a lot better believing i'm one of the only clumps of matter in the universe to become sentient through a process that has taken billions of years, than to believe I was spat into existence by an omnipotent cretin to fulfill no greater purpose than to serve, suffer, die, then probably suffer some more. The only reason you find evolution so depressing is because you were raisedto believe that your relationship with God is the only thing that makes you, or anyone else, significant. Not everyone else believes that.

 

[Vault101]

Why do people reject the theory that says the universe came from essentially nothing, that everything that happens it coincidence, that we are only here by happenstance, that our behavior is largely pre-programed, that our lives will ultimately amount to nothing, and that we will all return to nothing?

Sounds kind of blink when you actually think about it.

because the alterinitive is stupid

 

[DanDeFool]

Questioning, when it's done in cases like these, can also lead to scientific retardation.

wow, you've just written the stupidest statement I've ever come across.

Heh. Welp, that's your prerogative. I seriously doubt this is anything more than hyperbole and an attempt to deflect as our friend Nimza, though.

As a slight correction, I meant questioning like this in cases like these.

correct all you want but anyone that thinks questioning is bad, is just wrong.

Questioning is fine, but if you never listen to the answers you get, it kind of defeats the purpose.

 

[Faraja]

Why do people reject the theory that says the universe came from essentially nothing, that everything that happens it coincidence, that we are only here by happenstance, that our behavior is largely pre-programed, that our lives will ultimately amount to nothing, and that we will all return to nothing?

Sounds kind of blink when you actually think about it.

because the alterinitive is stupid

You mean the one where a guy in the sky, or possibly a flying spaghetti monster, created everything? The myth that's part of a large belief that being a good person will mean an eternity in paradise, and that all of your struggles aren't in vein? That all your suffering will be rewarded, and that there's actually some meaning to everything that happens?

Yeah, sounds real stupid.