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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 158 by 2timothy316]

We should have species changing out their gills for lungs all the time with the number of animals in the sea. But we don't.

There has to be some advantage to having lungs instead of gills for natural selection to drive the process. It's not like some random percentage of sea creatures will develop lungs, so that the process should continue for no other reason than that (as your comment above suggests ... why would we have species evolving lungs "all the time" without any benefit to them having lungs rather than gills?).

Have a look at this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-alti ... _in_humans

It is a perfect example of evolution by natural selection happening in humans now. These high altitude groups of people have evolved different methods of adapting to the lower oxygen levels at higher altitudes, and in a very short time span of just a few thousand years. These adaptations allow oxygen to be processed more efficiently, and after sufficient time they become fixed in the population.

People living at sea level would not develop these adaptations because the forcing function is not present (ie. the need to survive and reproduce in an environment with lower O2 levels). Sea-dwelling creatures that are never placed in an environment where lungs would be beneficial over gills for their survival would not develop lungs as there is no benefit to doing so. Mutations which might start towards a path to lungs would not offer any benefit to the animal, and may in fact be disadvantageous, so would not be "selected" in the sense of natural selection.

For the high altitude people, any mutations which resulted in more efficient processing of O2 would confer a survival and reproductive advantage (better health, longer life time, better ability to work harder and longer, etc.), so there is a reason those mutations would persist in those populations, but not in groups of people living nearer to sea level. Same with gills to lungs ... there has to be some benefit to having lungs over gills for evolution by natural selection to produce a modified creature with lungs.

[benchwarmer]

Um but that is what I'm being told by the theory. Natural selection that is not random somehow takes random mutations and makes species survive.

As others have pointed out, you seem to be confused what 'natural selection' is. It's very simple. Only those that survive long enough to reproduce are the ones that can reproduce. Obviously those that don't survive long enough to reproduce can't pass on any genetic material.

Are you saying things don't evolve now? Is it on break? Perhaps it needs to be woken up? I don't think anyone has ever been able to explain how natural selection...well...selects. How can a non thinking thing...select.

I never said any such thing. See the answer above. The 'selection' is simply those that manage to survive long enough to make babies get to pass on their traits.

Clearly the other 7, 599, 999, 990 people that didn't drown today are still able to reproduce at some point (assuming they are able). Thinking that gills should magically pop out of thin air is obviously not understanding how evolution works.

How would gills appear in humans? Only if a mutation that could eventually lead to gills gave a group of humans a better chance of surviving and reproducing over other humans in proximity to them. Perhaps on an island that flooded every day such that only those that can survive prolonged time in the water will survive long enough to reproduce. Of course this could just as easily lead to better swimmers and/or better floaters evolving out of this group (assuming any survive at all). Someone doesn't just decide "Oh hey, I think my baby should have gills" and *poof*. If a baby happened to be born that could absorb oxygen from the water directly somehow due to a mutation, then that baby has a better chance at surviving long enough to make more babies. That doesn't mean it will, but that baby now has an advantage over other humans in its environment. If it does manage to survive, have babies, and pass on this mutation, then we have more people that can absorb oxygen from water in the available gene pool. They clearly have an advantage in that they don't have to swim as hard or float as well as all the others. There's no guarantee that this trait will continue though. If the swimmers and floaters still happily reproduce than there is not distinct advantage.

Clearly no thinking process is at work here. Just simple survival and baby making.

[Bust Nak]

The egg eh? Who laid the egg? Who fertilized it?

An in the first chicken egg? A non-chicken bird laid it, fertilized by a male bird of that same species.

If 'natural selection' doesn't know then how did male and female chickens come after the egg?

Their predecessors to chickens already had two sexes and chickens simply inherited that trait from the ancestors.

I have no answers from evolution so why are you asking me?

But you have answers from me so answer my questions. How does a round hole know to let in a round peg but block a square one? And if a round hole doesn't know then how do round pegs fit but a square one won't?

Again I can't see how this even comes close to an answer to the questions I'm asking. It's like I'm asking where do babies come from and your answer is in a question like, 'why is a raven like a writing desk'?

It's like you asking where do babies come from and I answered "from the tummy of mommies." It's not very detailed but still the correct answer.

I'm not here to speculate. I want to find the evidence of evolution and not fill in the holes with speculation of it in form of some riddle.

What would you say to someone who says "I'm not here to speculate. I want to find the evidence of aging and not fill in the holes between two days with speculation of it in form of some riddle."

...like a fish evolving into another species. Or any cross species changes. All the life that has been on this planet we can't find one example? This planet should be littered with examples of reptile-mammals as slow they say evolution is.

There are plently of examples of transitional form between retile and mammals. None of them are reptile-mammals. Do you not understand the difference of a transitional and chimera? Do you not understand why the crocoduck is such a laughing stock? Stop asking for reptile-mammals, if evolution is true then they don't exist. That they don't exist is one reason why we are so sure of evolution being true. Instead start asking from transitional forms, these we have lots of.

[Danmark]

While it is the parts that 'remains unexplained' and apparently according to some, can't be explained that I'm focused on. Like a fish evolving into another species. Or any cross species changes. All the life that has been on this planet we can't find one example? This planet should be littered with examples of reptile-mammals as slow they say evolution is. But not a single fossil of a reptile-horse.

This passage does not contain a single proper sentence, so it is difficult to understand what you are trying to say.

We have the history of the horse but we only can find smaller or larger versions. These smaller and larger versions even live at the same time. All we get are pictures with lines but no half reptile half mammal remains. While some swiftly believe that, there is no hard evidence to be found.

These are, technically, sentences; however, I'm having trouble following the logic or meaning intended. What is a 'picture with lines' and how does such a thing prove or disprove anything? Are you claiming that the theory of evolution requires that a species must exist that is both a reptile and a horse? You seem to be saying that the only difference between extinct examples of horses is size. The 50 million year evolution of the horse presents dramatic differences that go far beyond size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Your post suggests you are not acquainted in any way with the theory of evolution. Instead you appear to be positing a theory of your own which bears no resemblance to the theory of evolution; then you complain that this faux 'theory' of yours is not supported by evidence. I agree, your belief about what evolution means is not supported by evidence. You've made a classic 'straw man' argument.

In regard to your supposed half reptile/half mammal creature, perhaps you intended to refer to a mythological animal like a Gryphon, or a monotreme like the platypus which, altho' mammalian, has features generally associated with birds or reptiles.
https://australianmuseum.net.au/platypus

Your reptile-mammal supposition is a contradiction in terms. Can you cite any reference that suggests such a creature must exist today in order for the theory of evolution to be valid? The lineage leading to today's mammals diverged in the Jurassic period, very roughly about 175 millon years ago. See:
Rougier, G. W.; Martinelli, A. G.; Forasiepi, A. M.; Novacek, M. J. (2007). "New Jurassic mammals from Patagonia, Argentina: A reappraisal of australosphenidan morphology and interrelationships."

[Rufus21]

What is a 'picture with lines' and how does such a thing prove or disprove anything?

When he talks about "a picture with lines" he is talking about things like this:



To him, it is just some cartoon animals with lines drawn between them that are supposed to represent ancestry. He wants more:

I want to be shown...Stop filling in the blanks with words and show real results. I want a pic of every frame from cell to human. Nothing less will do. If you don't have that then move along you have nothing for me.

He accepts that life forms change a little bit over short periods of time but not that they change a lot over large periods of time. He does not accept genetic proof or incomplete fossil records.

So that's where wer're at.

[Danmark]

What is a 'picture with lines' and how does such a thing prove or disprove anything?

When he talks about "a picture with lines" he is talking about things like this:



To him, it is just some cartoon animals with lines drawn between them that are supposed to represent ancestry. He wants more:

I want to be shown...Stop filling in the blanks with words and show real results. I want a pic of every frame from cell to human. Nothing less will do. If you don't have that then move along you have nothing for me.

He accepts that life forms change a little bit over short periods of time but not that they change a lot over large periods of time. He does not accept genetic proof or incomplete fossil records.

So that's where wer're at.

So you are saying he is arguing from ignorance; that his failure to be aware of the fossil record and transitionary forms constitutes an argument?

[psychoslice]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

For me personally I don't see the bible as being literal, I see it only as metaphorical, evolution makes much more sense than creationism, this is because they take the bible too literally.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

For me personally I don't see the bible as being literal, I see it only as metaphorical, evolution makes much more sense than creationism, this is because they take the bible too literally.

It is true that man has evolved in millions of years. But the issue strictly speaking does not belong to core teachings of the Truthful Religion. It pertains to science. The One-True-God created everything as per His Design and through any process
He willed. Evolution is also His creative design. Right, please?
Regards

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 167 by paarsurrey1]

The ultimate cop-out driven by a screaming desire for agency in all things.

[psychoslice]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

For me personally I don't see the bible as being literal, I see it only as metaphorical, evolution makes much more sense than creationism, this is because they take the bible too literally.

It is true that man has evolved in millions of years. But the issue strictly speaking does not belong to core teachings of the Truthful Religion. It pertains to science. The One-True-God created everything as per His Design and through any process
He willed. Evolution is also His creative design. Right, please?
Regards

I see, can you prove that ?.