Why some people reject evolution

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:25 pm

[you can skip the intro and go right to the last paragraph]

Growing up, I was seldom interested in math. At first it seemed tedious and boring. I invented my own shortcuts to make it easier. Later it required discipline when it got too difficult to do in my head. So, i loved geometry, but lost interest after trig, which I didn't even try to understand. I've been thinking of trying to teach myself calculus, just to see if, at 69 I can do it. So, I looked for a free online course of study and found this:

As Henry Ford said, " Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs ". Too much of the world is complicated by layers of evolution. If you understand how each layer is put down then you can begin to understand the complex systems that govern our world. Charles Darwin wrote in 1859 in his On The Origin of Species,

"When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which had a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, nearly in the same as when we look at any great mechanical invention as the summing of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting, I speak from experience, will the study of natural history become! " http://www.understandingcalculus.com/

So here's the question, do people not believe in evolution just because the Bible tells them so? Or is there another factor; that rather than try to understand it in small steps, one tiny transition at a time, since the entirety of the process ("microbe to man") seems impossible to them, do they reject it out of hand without looking at it step by step?

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:15 pm

Rufus21 wrote:
2timothy316 wrote: [Replying to post 107 by Rufus21]

I think you need to reread my posts again. You're cutting my posts up and not addressing my questions.
I've read your posts several times and I can't make sense of them.

I think we are talking about two very different things. What exactly do you think the "evolution theory" is and where did you learn that?

Do you agree with Berkeley?

Not all mutations matter to evolution
Since all cells in our body contain DNA, there are lots of places for mutations to occur; however, not all mutations matter for evolution. Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won't be passed onto offspring.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... cle/evo_18

Do you agree that some mutations are due to damage to DNA?

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpa ... ng-dna-344

The 3rd arm you keep speaking of isn't evidence of evolution. Its evidence of a mutation and that's all. Which could be due to environmental causes, disease, or any number of other factors.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:17 pm

2timothy316 wrote: Why can't I ask for more direct evidence?

You can, just try and be reasonable.

Should I not ask because 'it's too much of a challenge'?

Not if the challenge is unreasonable.

If this is what you mean, why should I accept what you say? Just because you said so?

No, but you should accept what I say because I have empirical evidence for evolution.

Aren't you acting exactly like religious leader saying, 'believe me' and when you ask for proof and get an answer, and I quote you, "Because it is unreasonable to not accept empirical evidence we do have for [God] while demand more." (Brackets mine) Do you see the problem?

Yes, the problem is, I have ample empirical evidence, while a religious leader don't any.

If roles were reversed wouldn't you ask for something more definite?

By reversed, would the amount of evidence be reversed too? If there is as much evidence for your God as there is for evolution, then no, I would not aske for anymore more.

Why must I jump to such a crazy conclusion?

Loaded question cannot be answered. Evolution is not a crazy conclusion.

A bacteria gets an extra flagella...that is all I get? Countless animals have lived and died on this planet. The earth should be littered with definite proof of evolution. Where is it?

In every university with a sizable biology department, also in your local natural history museum.

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:20 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
A bacteria gets an extra flagella...that is all I get? Countless animals have lived and died on this planet. The earth should be littered with definite proof of evolution. Where is it?
In every university with a sizable biology department, also in your local natural history museum.

There are no half fish half mammal examples. No half lizard half bird. Never seen a single one. What history museum has these so that might go see them.

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:29 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
2timothy316 wrote: Why can't I ask for more direct evidence?
You can, just try and be reasonable.

Reasonable: having sound judgment; fair and sensible

What my 'reason' tells me is to believe you goes against my judgment. There should cross-species examples of fish to mammal everywhere. There is not a single one. Is that not fair? Is it not sensible to think that with all the life that has lived on this earth there would be at least one example? Come back when you have more reasonable evidence please.

Rufus21 · Post by **Rufus21** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:31 pm

2timothy316 wrote: Do you agree with Berkeley?

Not all mutations matter to evolution

Yes. Since mutations are random, some of them are helpful, some are harmful and some don't make a difference. This is exactly what evolution predicts.

2timothy316 wrote: Do you agree that some mutations are due to damage to DNA?

Yes, some mutations are direct natural reactions to the environment.

2timothy316 wrote: The 3rd arm you keep speaking of isn't evidence of evolution. Its evidence of a mutation and that's all. Which could be due to environmental causes, disease, or any number of other factors.

And that natural mutation is the first step in evolution. If you agree with me so far, you agree with the first half of evolution. The only thing left is the various selection mechanisms. Is that the part you disagree with?

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:32 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
Why must I jump to such a crazy conclusion?
Loaded question cannot be answered. Evolution is not a crazy conclusion.

Considering the inclusive evidence it is crazy to jump to evolution, as it taught to day, as believable.

Rufus21 · Post by **Rufus21** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:38 pm

2timothy316 wrote: There should cross-species examples of fish to mammal everywhere. There is not a single one.

So, for example, a fish transitioning into a crocodile?

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... _tiktaalik

Just Google "Transitional Forms". Here's a start:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... e/lines_03

I don't understand how you can keep saying there is "not a single example" when a simple Google search shows at least one hundred.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:44 pm

2timothy316 wrote: There are no half fish half mammal examples. No half lizard half bird. Never seen a single one. What history museum has these so that might go see them.

There are no such things. Nor should you expect to see such things. The transitional form between fish and mammals would not be a half fish half mammal. Nor the transitional form between lizard and birds be a half lizard half bird. You making the same mistake as the infamous Ray Comfort in asking for crocoducks and frogkeys.

What my 'reason' tells me is to believe you goes against my judgment. There should cross-species examples of fish to mammal everywhere. There is not a single one. Is that not fair? Is it not sensible to think that with all the life that has lived on this earth there would be at least one example?

No, that is neither fair nor sensible, for the reason above.

Come back when you have more reasonable evidence please.

How about now? American Museum of Natural HistoryÂ in New York has a great selection of reasonable evidence for Evolution.

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:45 pm

[Replying to post 115 by Rufus21]

Here is the biggest problem with evolution. What drives it.

Evolution states that mutations are random but natural selection itself is not random at all.

Do understand the oxymoron here? Do you know what opposite of 'random' is?

Planned, systematic and methodical. How can you get order from random chaos without something to directing it. How can DNA know what is around it? Can it see the future? It's like saying life comes about by trial and error but just the right mutation happens just at the right time with nothing influencing it.

It's like saying a book falls into your lap. All the words fall in the right places, all the colors, pictures, the ink just happens to be there and the book even knows to bind itself all together. Here's the kicker. It gets it right on the first try. How did the bacteria get it right on the first mutation? Accident? Accident = random. Evolution states that random is not natural selection. Do you see why can't accept evolution? It contradicts itself.

2timothy316 · Post by **2timothy316** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:49 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
2timothy316 wrote: There are no half fish half mammal examples. No half lizard half bird. Never seen a single one. What history museum has these so that might go see them.
There are no such things. Nor should you expect to see such things.

I agree and I know I will never see such a thing because such a thing has never happened.

Come back when you have more reasonable evidence please.
How about now? American Museum of Natural HistoryÂ in New York has a great selection of reasonable evidence for Evolution.

I was at that very museum 2 months ago. They had evidence that many animals have lived and yes there have been changes to them over time within their own species. But you keep missing what I'm looking for. Fish to mammal. Lizard to bird. There is nothing connecting fish to man. This why I reject evolution. This is the evidence that is not present. Please tell me you see what I'm talking about. You keep hitting the straw-man.