Why some people reject evolution

[Danmark]

[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?

[Rufus21]

What are you missing from your body?

Gills. With climate change and sea levels rising, I'll need them soon enough.

But seriously, why would I be missing anything? If I was missing something I'd probably die. Natural selection at work!

[2timothy316]

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

Right, so how exactly would you even think that it was reasonable or fair to ask to see it? You are undermining your own case.

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.

No, I don't see what you are talking about. Why would "animals have lived and yes there have been changes to them over time within their own species" not ample evidence to convince you off fish to man or lizard to bird? How is it a strawman?

Because I avoid credulity.

[Bust Nak]

And yet you're trying to sell me that DNA is random with it's mutations.

Right, because unlike ink, DNA do have a natural affinity to form the DNA equivalent of sentences.

No it's the perfect analogy. DNA is encoded with the book of life. If a book with a few pages can't be made through random processes. Why in the world would I believe that DNA which if written down would stretch to the Sun and back would be made randomly? It makes no sense.

Because the DNA naturally form sentences but ink don't? Is that not completely obvious?

No, I don't see what you are talking about. Why would "animals have lived and yes there have been changes to them over time within their own species" not ample evidence to convince you off fish to man or lizard to bird? How is it a strawman?

Because I avoid credulity.

That implies it takes credulity to believe evolution. That's unreasonable given the empirical evidence we have.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 120 by 2timothy316]

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.

This sounds like the all too common misunderstanding by anti-evolutionists that leads them to invent terms like "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution to try and make an artificial distinction between changes within a species, and more substantial changes over time that lead to new species.

But this, along with the completely erroneous idea that there should be transitional forms that look like half fish and half mammal, or similar, just demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what Darwinian evolution actually is and how it works.

It is called the "theory" of evolution because the original postulates by Darwin and others have been experimentally verified via extensive observations on real biological systems of all kinds, both living specimens and the extensive fossil record, and genetic correlations have added further confirmations over the last 40 years in particular. These studies have been carried out by tens of thousands of competent researchers employing the scientific method, with peer review of their results, and have stood the test of time and hard scrutiny. It is, by far, our best explanation of how life diversified on this planet.

[2timothy316]

/viewtopic.php?p=891752#891752]2timothy316[/url]"]
What are you missing from your body?[/quote]

But seriously, why would I be missing anything? If I was missing something I'd probably die.

Exactly! You're not in mid evolution. You have everything you need. There is no evidence that we are evolving into some other type of animal either. There is no evidence that an animal is becoming more like a human either. No lizard men or tiger people.

[2timothy316]

That implies it takes credulity to believe evolution.

Bingo! Credulity is a rush to believe what one is told. Some see changes in animals and easily believe that a fish can turn into a man, even with no evidence of that. It's the rush to believe that though the lack of that evidence of a fish-mammal or lizard-bird is why it's credulity. It also goes against what we are taught about science in accepting something without observing it. It has never been observed, one species turning into another. Not a single one. To believe it happens is credulity.

[2timothy316]

It is, by far, our best explanation of how life diversified on this planet.

But it's not complete. There are many holes.

[benchwarmer]

What are you missing from your body?

Gills. With climate change and sea levels rising, I'll need them soon enough.

But seriously, why would I be missing anything? If I was missing something I'd probably die. Natural selection at work!

Nice.

It begs the question though.
10 people a day die from drowning. Why aren't we adapting? For that matter, why aren't we adapting to the other thousands of other things that is killing us? Cancer is the 2nd leading cause of death. We aren't we adapting? Why hasn't natural selection kicked in?

We are adapting! You're completely ignoring how the mechanism of evolution actually works and trying to put your own ideas on how it SHOULD work.

Just because 10 people drown every day doesn't mean we will all wake up tomorrow with gills. Or that all of a sudden babies will be born with gills.

Let me ask you this, will those 10 people who died today reproduce? Or will those 10 who died somehow effect the rest of humanity and how they reproduce? Clearly those who are left and able to reproduce will pass on whatever traits they have. This could easily be the ability to swim, the predisposition to avoid doing dumb stuff and drowning, or any number of actual genetic traits. Evolution doesn't work by asking 2timothy316 what the next generation should look like. That sounds a lot like the theistic approach. i.e. somebody on a whim decides that now people will have gills.

If you want people to develop gills you will have to come up with a way more specific and necessary pressure than 0.00000000125% of the population drowning every day.

[Rufus21]

Yes. Changes in animals do happen. That can't be ignored.

But what evolution states is that everything comes from one source. This is where the theory is broken and evidence falls to zero.

Imagine this: A fish gives birth to a very slightly different fish. That fish gives birth to a slightly different fish again. Then again, and again, and again. At some point the newest type of fish will not be able to mate with the first type. Now you have a new species.

Continue that for a few million years, and combine it with a changing environment that they must constantly adapt to, and see what you get at the other end.

Is that so crazy?

It begs the question though.
For that matter, why aren't we adapting to the other thousands of other things that is killing us? Cancer is the 2nd leading cause of death. We aren't we adapting?

I'm glad you asked that! The problem is that Cancer is evolving. The biggest problem in fighting the disease is that it can adapt to the treatments we have made.

As far as other diseases, we have developed vaccines for many of them so the need to evolve is no longer necessary. Simply put, we are "fit enough" to survive without the need to adapt.

This touches on a very important concept. When you look around the world you see millions of different life forms, all of which are incredibly inefficient. They are barely able to survive in their own environment and are completely incapable of living in other environments. This is exactly what we would expect from a natural process which makes life "good enough" to barely survive. This is not what in intelligent designer would make.

[H.sapiens]

Odd, do you not ask for evidence? Why is it an 'excuse' when I ask but not when you do?

Because it is unreasonable to not accept empirical evidence we do have for evolution while demand more.

So what you are saying is that the poster that said, "We have seen complexity arise from simplicity using a mindless process without any intelligent interference." should not have said that.

And BTW people can and do show every step of a person's growth. Just search 'daily pictures of fetus' and 'daily pictures of a person growing up'.

What would you say to those who reject such pictures with "Daily? It still is not enough to prove aging. Missing hours will always be a problem for those that are trying to use real science to prove aging. Anything else is speculation..."

But evolution is not even showing the above. No, it's like they are showing me a child in one pic and then showing a fish in the next and saying, that's the same person. Certainly you can see why I'm skeptical. There is no pics of a something in mid evolution. Not a single one. There is nothing on earth that is a 3rd, half, a 4th or even 99.9% between changes. It's all finished product.

Nothing is a finished product, all is evolving and changing.

What are you missing from your body?

All manner of things that relate to recent changes in the environment. If humans are to survive as a species, increased resistance to radiation and plastics' chemical residue are likely in our evolutionary future, not lizard men or tiger men that present no particular reproductive advantage.