Why do people reject evolution?

[DracoSuave]

I think this belongs in Religion and Politics

That's the problem.

Evolution theory is a SCIENCE. It should not be relegated to 'Religion and Politics' because it is neither religious, nor political.

The ONLY reason it would go there is because Anti-Evolution proponents do so for religious reasons and use politics as their vehicle to do so.

D.I am trying to say that all possibilities should allways be considered including science and green underwear stealing goblins

All things, in science, should be considered according to scientific merit. Hypotheses where scientific work is not or CANNOT be done are not to be considered of equal merit to theories which HAVE.

Evolution is the best explanation science has to offer--it's the only one that explains the evidence, that produces reliable predictions, and can bring forth technologies that improve our lives for the future. It is tested, demonstrated, and retested.

Complaining that people are just saying 'It's science' as if that were enough to end the discussion is discrediting what science IS. It's a very rigorous process of testing and throwing the results to the wolves to tear apart. Only good ideas will survive scientific rigor, and only BETTER ideas can surpass them.

It's the process itself which guarantees that. Nothing is taken on faith. Scientists don't simply accept an experiment, they redo the experiment to see if the work was done right. Disproving a commonly accepted theory is the best way to scientific fame--Einstein is known for relativity because it replaced newton's gravity. No one remembers what he got his nobel prize for.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

It is estimated that a species cannot propagate itself with less that 5,000 members of that species in existence. Imagine if one of those 5,000 members was born with the mutation of a weird bump on his head. What would happen -- all of the females of his species would find him incredibly attractive and jump his bones and over a thousand generations later, the weird bump has become a horn that aids in survival? Or, if the weird creature was even allowed to mate at all, wouldn't the bump simply be absorbed into the gene pool and disappear? Now imagine that the weird-bump-creature is not just one of 5,000, but one out of several million. Even less likely now, isn't it? And I could go on about this all day, pointing out things, such as the reality that mutation is almost always a BAD thing for survival.

No, when you really stop to think about things objectively and critically, the millions and millions of layers of improbability surrounding evolutionary theory quickly turn into impossibility.

Can I have your Source please. I have a feeling either it's propaganda, misread or doesn't exist.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

This is the single best explanation of evolutionary misconceptions i have seen. Now "Complicated psueudo science words" or anything. Basic and clear explanation.

 

[DracoSuave]

It is estimated that a species cannot propagate itself with less that 5,000 members of that species in existence. Imagine if one of those 5,000 members was born with the mutation of a weird bump on his head. What would happen -- all of the females of his species would find him incredibly attractive and jump his bones and over a thousand generations later, the weird bump has become a horn that aids in survival? Or, if the weird creature was even allowed to mate at all, wouldn't the bump simply be absorbed into the gene pool and disappear? Now imagine that the weird-bump-creature is not just one of 5,000, but one out of several million. Even less likely now, isn't it? And I could go on about this all day, pointing out things, such as the reality that mutation is almost always a BAD thing for survival.

I don't understand your rebuttal.

It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how GENETICS work, never mind evolution.

In fact, how can you accept genetics and NOT accept evolution? Gene theory includes evolution theory as a part of it--as gene theory is the explanation for how heredity happens.

Let's take a different tack with this.


1) Do you agree or disagree that life reproduces itself?
1a) Assuming you agree, do you agree or disagree that there is a mechanism by which life can transfer some of its attributes to its offspring?
2) Do you agree or disagree that the process is imperfect, and that even something as simple as 'mommy has different hair than daddy' means that a child can end up with traits that neither parent have?
3a) Do you agree or disagree that sometimes living organisms possess traits that make them less likely to survive?
3b) Do you agree or disagree that sometimes living organisms possess traits that make mating more or less difficult, either through physical frailty, or through being less attractive to potential mates?

Mathematical analysis has proven that if 1a is true, 2 is true, and EITHER 3a OR 3b are true, evolution is not only possible, but a guaranteed inevitability. In order to disprove evolution as a process, you MUST disagree with 1a, 2, or 3a AND 3b.

Now, seeing as it's common knowledge that

a) animals can fuck,
b) animals that fuck have kids,
c) animals that fuck and have kids tend to have kids that are not like either parent but a mix
d) animals that fuck tend to want to fuck more fuckable animals
e) animals that fuck need to live long enough to fuck because dead things can't fuck

And that all of those are true for humans, where is your evidence or argument that evolution is false?

In other words, can you disprove that animals fuck?

 

[disgruntledgamer]

A.I agree throwing hands up in the air and calling hard things supernatural and shit is being close minded.
B.I agree that silly supernatural things should be critically judged and considered or you are throwing your hands in the air and not proving shit,
C.I am just saying that too many people yell science now instead of supernatural.
D.I am trying to say that all possibilities should allways be considered including science and green underwear stealing goblins

No not all things should be considered, we can't possibly consider and test all the batshit cray ideas out there without any evidence, we'd never get anywhere and makes real science futile. Concluding that it's the work of a supernatural being is about as useful as saying "It's magic"

Only ideas derived by the scientific method deserve to be considered and tested. Creationism/ID, Magic and Supernatural beings don't fix the criteria, because they started with an assumed conclusion and cannot be falsified, science doesn't work that way.

For abetter understanding of why Creationism doesn't fit the criteria and isn't considered a theory or hypothesis.

 

[Wen-Chiao O'Boyle]

In a study done in the early 21st century, political scientists found that people are unlikely to change their personal beliefs and opinions, even when faced with objective facts. It is theorized that such behavior is used to maintain a group mentality, such as the one of a religion, and may be linked to self-esteem. So when someone denies evolution based on their religion, it's basically because they do not wish to lose their allies by thinking differently.

 

[Prosis]

snip

Sure, I'll bite.
So, let's use your idea. A weird bump which females find attractive for some reason. In most species, females pursue a strong, healthy male. This is because a strong and healthy male provides better children than a weak and sickly one. Often times, males will demonstrate how they are stronger than other males by clashing heads, such as in deer and sheep.
Assume that, initially, they are all flatheaded, until one of them is born with a skeletal protrusion in his skull. It's not a full horn, or even a partial one. Just a slight thickness in the top front of the skull. This is enough to create a bump. It hits harder than flatheads (very slightly), giving it an advantage. That is, it increases its probability of winning a competition for a female.

This unique individual will have more matings than other males. Since a male can mate with multiple females over its lifespan, let's say it has 11 offspring total (11 matings), in comparison to the normal 10. A very small difference. However, it is a difference. And over time, differences become highly pronounced. A car driving 35 mph vs a car driving 36mph is hardly any difference in speed at all. But after 1,000 hours of driving (or 1,000 generations) the distance between the two is very large. Likewise with species. So, bigger protrusion= more mating. This continues, with the species gaining larger skull protrusions. Eventually, it would lead to a horn (of course there are many more generations, with selection pressures leading to not having skin over the protrusion, a sharper protrusion over a broad one, etc).

You're right in that it is very unlikely that a specific horn will evolve. However, evolution uses what works, not what is specific, optimal, or best for the species. Thus, some species got horns out of it, while others just got thicker heads, or some other mutation that grants benefits.
And yes, the majority of mutations are bad. The few that are good, however, allow the entire species to advance. This is especially visible in viruses. We create antibodies and flu shots to kill the viruses. However, the ones with mutations for immunity are not killed. They reproduce, and as they are the only survivors, the entire species will have that immunity (requiring a new flu shot the next year).

Furthermore, bad mutations can be very beneficial in the right circumstance. Sickle Cell Anemia is a genetic disease that will kill a human early in their life (teens or twenties if I recall correctly). In Africa, Malaria will kill a human while it is still a child. However, Sickle Cell Anemia grants immunity to Malaria. Sure, the person will die young, but they are able to reproduce (not able to reproduce if they die of malaria). This is why Sickle Cell Anemia is is much more prevalent in people with African heritage than it is in all other people. Despite it being a very bad mutation, it was beneficial to the population.

 

[Something Amyss]

People religiously defend it not because it's correct, but because they WANT to believe it over other explanations of existence, for various reasons.

No, they defend it because it's a rigorously tested theory which provides testable, reliable results.

It is estimated that a species cannot propagate itself with less that 5,000 members of that species in existence.

Based on what? I want to know, but I'm actually going to assume this is true for the sake of argument here for a moment.

Imagine if one of those 5,000 members was born with the mutation of a weird bump on his head. What would happen -- all of the females of his species would find him incredibly attractive and jump his bones and over a thousand generations later, the weird bump has become a horn that aids in survival? Or, if the weird creature was even allowed to mate at all, wouldn't the bump simply be absorbed into the gene pool and disappear? Now imagine that the weird-bump-creature is not just one of 5,000, but one out of several million. Even less likely now, isn't it? And I could go on about this all day, pointing out things, such as the reality that mutation is almost always a BAD thing for survival.

We've seen desirable traits passed on. Darwin started his whole theory based in part on observed natural selection within one lifetime.

Now, you're conflating "all change" and beneficial change, and that's fine if you're not interested in logic. But for someone complaining we only WANT to believe in evolution to...I don't know why we would choose to believe a falsehood, but whatever. You might want to actually try looking at it instead of declaring it broken based on your own lack of knowledge or unwillingness to approach it honestly.

A beneficial mutation that increases survivability does tend to lead to more of the species "jumping the bones" of the impacted animal. Nor does mutation have to happen in groups of one. That's just staging to try and make a fairly simple concept sound absurd.

I would like to see this argument for mutation almost always being a bad thing, but I'm not sure it would even address relevant concerns.

No, when you really stop to think about things objectively and critically, the millions and millions of layers of improbability surrounding evolutionary theory quickly turn into impossibility.

You haven't thought about things objectively. Or, at least, if you have, you didn't portray it well here.

 

[Nimzabaat]

I'm not trying to fuel either side because, quite frankly, evolutionists are representing themselves very poorly in this forum. Evolutionists are supposed to be "learned men/women" and therefore open to new ideas. This has been mostly burning digital effigies and name calling.

You're not answering any calls of ours about what valuable new ideas we're supposedly rejecting, Mr. Creationist.

You're rejecting the idea that you are just believing a textbook that someone has written that you cannot personally verify. You are not a thousand years old. You are also claiming that one small group of people has lied to a much larger group of people about how life came to be. Then you claim that it is impossible for it to be your small group of people so it must be the other small group. That's all i'm saying here. You're defending the ideas of the day with the information of the day, while the other side is defending the ideas of a different age with their own textbook. Well actually, in this thread, we've had trolls pretending to be creationists, and evolutionists making Humans look bad. Oh, and a few fence-sitters like myself who think that the evolutionists could be representing themselves better.

PS: I never said I was a creationist.

 

[StrangerQ]

-snip-

No not all things should be considered, we can't possibly consider and test all the batshit cray ideas out there without any evidence, we'd never get anywhere and makes real science futile. Concluding that it's the work of a supernatural being is about as useful as saying "It's magic"

Only ideas derived by the scientific method deserve to be considered and tested. Creationism/ID, Magic and Supernatural beings don't fix the criteria, because they started with an assumed conclusion and cannot be falsified, science doesn't work that way.

For abetter understanding of why Creationism doesn't fit the criteria and isn't considered a theory or hypothesis.

I wonder should i be insulted to be led into something as silly as creationism while trying to make a personal point of view about how i think and debating about nature of truth.

And part underlined sounds like people that have strong RELIGIOUS beliefs and are being questioned.
No offence but making a claim that only things that are within borders of certain concept circle are worthy of looking sound quite much argument a fanatic follower of *insert holy book X* would make.

Now
Lets presume that some random omnipotent critter appears and refers itself as a "GOD".
Should such creature as "GOD" prove creationism to be right it would change what is considered as truth and facts.
My POINT being that all things under FACT, TRUTH and KNOWLEDGE within science have changing value and those values change everytime something is discovered.
And because the values change everything should be considered in grand scale but values for Facts etc. should be given with in a smaller context circle.

Thus you have considered green goblins that are the puppet masters but use evolution as standard and give it a value of current fact and truth

 

[DracoSuave]

\You're rejecting the idea that you are just believing a textbook that someone has written that you cannot personally verify.

I am going to stop you right here.

What is stopping anyone from verifying it? What is stopping anyone from going and doing the research and looking at the data, and checking the processes by which the data is acquired and vetting it for themselves?

No really, what barriers are there that exist that stop people from looking at the evidence for themselves?


The scientific process is open and transparent. Anyone can look at data, and anyone else can reproduce their work. That's the whole point of it. There's no mysteries or closed doors or secret knowledges or anything like that. The only barriers are personal: Do you have the ability to understand it?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

You're rejecting the idea that you are just believing a textbook that someone has written that you cannot personally verify.

Its really hard to argue with this idea when youre a biologist. I HAVE tested it. I worked in a genetics lab for a few weeks as work experience. We studied the evolution and mutation of Rhizobia bacterium in response to nitrate level in the soil. I even wrote an article about it which you can read here:

http://jacksonlabg53.blogspot.co.uk/2012_08_01_archive.html

I wrote a little about how "Teaching from a text book" really misrepresents science.

I mean i agree the teaching of evolution in school should be better. Evidence should be clearer. Teachers shouldnt dictate. But dont assume we ALL know this because we were just told so. Some of us actually pursue a career in studying this and have worked with it first hand.

You have a very good point in this: The fact creationists exist shows us we are doing something wrong in our teaching of what should be a simple theory. Our attitude to teaching isnt getting the point across well enough in some way or another. Misconceptions are rife and people arent aware of the evidence that exists or HOW its been put together or how it was gathered. I learnt a LOT in my trip to the genetics lab. I think such things should be mandetory at school instead of text book readings. I worked with DNA profiling and mutation and traced the evolution of the Rhizobia bacterium through different environments. Ive never had a clearer understanding of how evolution worked until i helped sequence all the mutants and studied their traits. We do need to work on this.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Now
Lets presume that some random omnipotent critter appears and refers itself as a "GOD".
Should such creature as "GOD" prove creationism to be right it would change what is considered as truth and facts.
My POINT being that all things under FACT, TRUTH and KNOWLEDGE within science have changing value and those values change everytime something is discovered.
And because the values change everything should be considered in grand scale but values for Facts etc. should be given with in a smaller context circle.

Well if some random omnipotent critter appears and refers itself as a "GOD" might I suggest getting checked for schizophrenia. You obviously didn't watch the video you quoted because it explains why supernatural beings cannot be considered science. Your hypothesis/theory needs to be falsifiable, you don't start with a conclusion and work backwards. If God came down and told you the answer than science itself becomes irrelevant, why investigate into something if you already know the answer?

 

[disgruntledgamer]

You have a very good point in this: The fact creationists exist shows us we are doing something wrong in our teaching of what should be a simple theory. Our attitude to teaching isnt getting the point across well enough in some way or another.

It's not our teaching that are at fault but the teachings of religious groups, who in a better words of the sense brain wash their followers. When 99% of scientists accept evolution and reject creation while 66% of the common population don't somethings a miss. Religion promotes ignorance, and when you have idiots like Kent Hovind running around spreading lies to further the ignorance for financial gain doesn't really help much either.

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

Because a lot of people were not properly educated.

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

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.

No, not necessarily. One can still believe in a deity; one can still believe in a higher power. 2001: A Space Odyssey, anyone?

 

[cerebus23]

The bare bottom line issue is that if you are going to deny evolution then what are you back that up with?

Most it will come to their bible of choice.

But there are so many problems with taking the bible as a literal account of what happened is is laughable that anyone could try to argue with a straight face that it is literal and it is the word of their god.

Many of the stories in the bible are allegories for things in their world, and how they explained stuff, many of the stories included in the roman catholic bible are stories outright stolen form other cultures around the area, and modified so that their guy was the hero that saved humanity.

Add to that the very real problem of many of these stores being passed around orally for 100s if not 1000s of years before they were put down into any kind of written form.

And how anyone could say they are literal accounts of happenings in any way shape or form is totally and completely blown.

And you can take you official bible and break that down even further to say why were these books included these book thrown out some books outright banned, things edited etc, and that book your are holding looks even more shakey.

And we evolved out a lemur like creature, the apes evolved out of the same ancestor so we share a common ancestor we did not evolve out of apes. so if you are telling that kid that gorilla over there is you grandfather you are factually wrong, it would be more proper to say very very very distant cousins.

Also find it interesting that the early explorers and peoples that encountered great apes all recognized a kinship that they all found undeniable.

Evolution is the best model that fits the world we can see with our ever so limited brief lifespans in this universe that has been going on for 4 billion years.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

It's not our teaching that are at fault but the teachings of religious groups, who in a better words of the sense brain wash their followers. When 99% of scientists accept evolution and reject creation while 66% of the common population don't somethings a miss. Religion promotes ignorance, and when you have idiots like Kent Hovind running around spreading lies to further the ignorance for financial gain doesn't really help much either.

Youre most certainly right that it isnt all our fault. Not at all. But we can definitely do our best to dispell this ignorance and misinformation. Evidence should be presented to the children learning evolution at all stages, things should NEVER be justified without the proper explanation of the process and the real impacts of that evidence on the theory.

Basically even WITH idiots telling people you cant get pregnant if you do it standing up we are still expected to educate teens on safe sex and the same applies here. We need to educate people on WHY they are morons more effectively. Ignorance is meant to be targeted and explained with evidence and reason. We cant teach like we are in a vacuum. Stupid people WILL spread mis information on purpose about what evolution is. Its important we recognize and adapt to this challenge.

The something amiss is the cultural view on "science". These people tend to view scientists as mysterious figures who do crazy stuff they cant understand, so they sit patiently for results and revere it as scripture because no one makes it relatable or gives them any context about it. Obviously this is NOT what scientists want or intend to do. And when someone points out, rightly, that the way they view scientists is retarded they blame science rather than the way society has raised them to treat science as a scary un-approachable unknown meant only for the mental elite. Scientists are regular people and anyone can understand any process, even if its just the basics. The transparency of science is what makes it great. You asked "Why DONT people seek out their own evidence, they can!". Youre right. They can. And its glorious. But many think they cant because they dont think its accessible enough to understand without devoting years to it.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

You have a very good point in this: The fact creationists exist shows us we are doing something wrong in our teaching of what should be a simple theory. Our attitude to teaching isnt getting the point across well enough in some way or another. Misconceptions are rife and people arent aware of the evidence that exists or HOW its been put together or how it was gathered. I learnt a LOT in my trip to the genetics lab. I think such things should be mandetory at school instead of text book readings. I worked with DNA profiling and mutation and traced the evolution of the Rhizobia bacterium through different environments. Ive never had a clearer understanding of how evolution worked until i helped sequence all the mutants and studied their traits. We do need to work on this.

That is not a fault of any particular education system other then ones that "teach" faith as well. How can a child form a healthy, factually supported opinion of the world around them, when they are being conditioned to follow another source of "knowledge" that demands unquestioning and unwavering faith (with eternal repercussions if you do waver) based on hearsay and liberal interpretations.

Education is not failing us. The major schools of science are all constantly growing with each new generation. There is only one retarding factor and that is religious indoctrination.

Look at how "faith" schools teach, with this in mind, and you will see something rather heinous. They aren't educating them, they are imposing beliefs and fortifying belief through fear/dogma or unabashed misinformation. I remember in my catholic school going from a science class where a general Science teacher would liberally skip chapters that conflicted with his beliefs, then followed by religious education, where they shat out a few condescending words about other world religions while proceeding to talk about how awesome Jesus was.

When it comes to peer reviewed HARD science, there is no issues. When it comes to anything with an overt religious influence the water gets real murky.

 

[Olas]

No not all things should be considered, we can't possibly consider and test all the batshit cray ideas out there without any evidence, we'd never get anywhere and makes real science futile. Concluding that it's the work of a supernatural being is about as useful as saying "It's magic"

Only ideas derived by the scientific method deserve to be considered and tested. Creationism/ID, Magic and Supernatural beings don't fix the criteria, because they started with an assumed conclusion and cannot be falsified, science doesn't work that way.

High five.
This is exactly what I've been saying since forever. Some people try to make this issue about genes, heredity, and mutation. But really it should be about the scientific process.

It's not creationists vs evolutionists, it's creationists vs scientists.
Despite what they think nobody is trying to prove evolution or disprove creationism, to do so would be unscientific. If scientific investigation turned up evidence that animals were created by a divine force that's what the scientific community would believe.

Instead they found evidence that species gradually change over time. They didn't start off with that conclusion in mind, it's the one they reached based on the evidence.

Creationism uses a bastardized version of science that starts with a conclusion in mind and then tries to find evidence supporting that conclusion. This alone makes it fundamentally unscientific and essentially invalid.