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?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 179 by For_The_Kingdom]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish, etc..

If that is a criticism of evolution then it is very short-sighted. What you have said is true and is true even within evolution. Evolution is about the tiny changes that occur and accumulate over long periods of time in populations of a species. If that population is isolated from other populations of the same species, eventually the two may be different enough that they are unable to breed and bear significant differences in appearance and behaviour.

Take your cats and dogs. Make a list of all the characteristics they have in common such as limbs, hair, organs and so on. Make a list of all the characteristics that are different. Most of these will be things that relate to appearance such as teeth, jaw, hair and so on. Now, although evolution does not say that dogs became cats or cats became dogs, it does say that in the very distant past they had a common ancestor. Try to imagine two isolated populations of that ancestor and repeatedly make tiny changes in them over a long time. Can you not envision that one of your populations may ultimately end up looking like cats while the other ends up looking like dogs?

The driving force for what changes are retained and passed on is the response to changes in the environment. Characteristics that favour survival are more likely to be passed on thus retaining that trait. For example, in response to diminishing temperatures over long periods of time, longer hair will enhance survival. Individuals with longer hair will have a better survival rate and that trait will eventually predominate in the population. All traits are the result of the expression of genes and, since those genes are passed on through DNA via reproduction, the traits become locked in. It is not simply a case of temporary adaptation as some creationists may claim.

[For_The_Kingdom]

If that is a criticism of evolution then it is very short-sighted. What you have said is true and is true even within evolution.

If what I said is true and even true within evolution, then don't go telling me that a reptile evolved into a bird, because that doesn't exactly mirror the "dogs producing dogs" concept to me.

Maybe it does to you, but not to me.

Evolution is about the tiny changes that occur and accumulate over long periods of time in populations of a species.

Sure, and those tiny changes will get you many different kind of species and/or breeds, but the "kind" of animal won't change a bit.

A dog, a wolf, and a coyote are different species, but they are clearly the same "kind" of animal no matter how you look at it.

If that population is isolated from other populations of the same species, eventually the two may be different enough that they are unable to breed and bear significant differences in appearance and behaviour.

Take your cats and dogs. Make a list of all the characteristics they have in common such as limbs, hair, organs and so on. Make a list of all the characteristics that are different. Most of these will be things that relate to appearance such as teeth, jaw, hair and so on. Now, although evolution does not say that dogs became cats or cats became dogs, it does say that in the very distant past they had a common ancestor. Try to imagine two isolated populations of that ancestor and repeatedly make tiny changes in them over a long time. Can you not envision that one of your populations may ultimately end up looking like cats while the other ends up looking like dogs?

The driving force for what changes are retained and passed on is the response to changes in the environment. Characteristics that favour survival are more likely to be passed on thus retaining that trait. For example, in response to diminishing temperatures over long periods of time, longer hair will enhance survival. Individuals with longer hair will have a better survival rate and that trait will eventually predominate in the population. All traits are the result of the expression of genes and, since those genes are passed on through DNA via reproduction, the traits become locked in. It is not simply a case of temporary adaptation as some creationists may claim.

At the end of the day, as long as dogs continue reproducing as they always have been since they've been known to man, their offspring will ALWAYS remain dogs. If there is any exception to this, I haven't seen it yet, and neither have you or anyone else.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 181 by For_The_Kingdom]

Treat reptiles and birds as the same kind - Sauropsida, your problem with evolution will evaporate.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 181 by For_The_Kingdom]

Treat reptiles and birds as the same kind - Sauropsida, your problem with evolution will evaporate.

Sure, why not. I mean after all, a bald eagle and a crocodile are practically twins.

[Hawkins]

You don't need to believe what any book says as long as it can be proven that ToE is not a science.


There's a reason why it is called a "science". It's because scientists will do what they can under limits. It by no means says that they can be right above those limits.


======
Science is about the prediction of an end-to-end repetition. Science is accurate because it's always about something which can repeat infinitive number of times for humans to observe and most importantly to predict how it repeats to draw a conclusion. The methodology ToE employed is completely different from any other science. This is so simply because it takes millions of years for an end-to-end evolution to possibly repeat itself. We don't have that time to observe and predict how it repeats to draw any scientific conclusion.

If you implicitly claim that a human can be evolved from in the end a single cell organism, then you have to make the single-cell to human process repeats itself infinitive number of times for humans to do enough observations, and most importantly predictions on how this repeats in order to draw a scientific conclusion. That's how each and every single science works.

This is so because humans are creatures of the present. We don't have the capability to reach the past, and we don't have the capability to reach the future. It is because we have no capability to reach the future that if we can correctly and repeatedly predict how a phenomenon repeats itself into the future, we know that we hit a truth in terms of how we make use of a "theory" to predict the repetition. This is the nature of science and why it is accurate. In a nutshell, science is the making use of predictions repeatedly to identify a truth (which can repeat). ToE is a valid hypothesis in suggesting that evolution (from single cell to fully grown) can be a repeating process (of natural selection). However it's not up to the scientific accuracy as long as you can't make it repeat itself (to the extent of infinitive number of times) for the prediction of its repetition to be made correctly and repeatedly.

That said, to me the theory of common ancestry is a joke in concluding that everyone has an invisible common ancestor without knowing who it is. In terms of how things work, the genes are so if you would like that animal to have its appearance and behavior. If you want a chimp to have its current appearance and behavior, you need the genes to be so disregarding whether the genes share anything in common with that of humans. Everything else can be anything, not necessarily be a result of evolution. It can be a result of interbreeding or a mixture of interbreeding and adaptation. The difference between adaption and evolution is that species can be selected by the nature, however this may not be the way how they are brought to their current state from a single cell.

An analogy is that whenever you see someone in uniform sitting in the cockpit of a plane, you draw the conclusion that he's a pilot. This can be true however it's a pure speculation. He's a pilot when he launches and lands a plane from one airport to another repeatedly as we predict. Then he's a pilot. This what science is and how it makes a difference from the pure speculation. Similarly, when you see how nature changes a species to draw the conclusion that nature can drive a single cell to that species, it's a pure speculation. If you can predict repeatedly how a single cell turns into that species without error, only then you have a science!

[brunumb]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

At the end of the day, as long as dogs continue reproducing as they always have been since they've been known to man, their offspring will ALWAYS remain dogs. If there is any exception to this, I haven't seen it yet, and neither have you or anyone else.

Did you actually read what I posted? Your response was just to dismiss it without any explanation of how it could be wrong. The offspring of dogs will be dogs, but that is not exactly what is involved in the process of the evolution of new species.

Did you list the similarities and differences between cats and dogs and consider how many small changes in one could theoretically lead to another? Remember it it is not about changes in one generation. Demonstrate that you actually understand the process involved in evolution and try to explain where the process breaks down.

Take your cats and dogs. Make a list of all the characteristics they have in common such as limbs, hair, organs and so on. Make a list of all the characteristics that are different. Most of these will be things that relate to appearance such as teeth, jaw, hair and so on. Now, although evolution does not say that dogs became cats or cats became dogs, it does say that in the very distant past they had a common ancestor. Try to imagine two isolated populations of that ancestor and repeatedly make tiny changes in them over a long time. Can you not envision that one of your populations may ultimately end up looking like cats while the other ends up looking like dogs?

The driving force for what changes are retained and passed on is the response to changes in the environment. Characteristics that favour survival are more likely to be passed on thus retaining that trait. For example, in response to diminishing temperatures over long periods of time, longer hair will enhance survival. Individuals with longer hair will have a better survival rate and that trait will eventually predominate in the population. All traits are the result of the expression of genes and, since those genes are passed on through DNA via reproduction, the traits become locked in. It is not simply a case of temporary adaptation as some creationists may claim.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

What "kind" of animal is a platypus? Surely it belongs to a larger group where it obviously shares attributes and looks the same. Right?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 183 by For_The_Kingdom]

You sneer but look at the scaly feet of eagles and crocodiles, their shelled eggs, they also share similar bone structures that are unique to just birds and lizards.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Did you actually read what I posted?

I did.

Your response was just to dismiss it without any explanation of how it could be wrong.

Because I want positive evidence for the theory, not bio-babble.

The offspring of dogs will be dogs, but that is not exactly what is involved in the process of the evolution of new species.

Right, and the offspring of snakes will always be snakes. But you believe that the origin of snakes came from a non-snake, which would undermine your above statement "the offspring of dogs will be dogs".

Did you list the similarities and differences between cats and dogs and consider how many small changes in one could theoretically lead to another?

Sure their are similarities but remember, "the offspring of dogs will be dogs", so there is no need to bring cats into the equation.

Remember it is not about changes in one generation.

You can posit however many generations you'd like, but you will always end with what you began with, the same KIND of animal. Sure, there may be many different varieties of the animal, but it will be the same kind of animal.

Demonstrate that you actually understand the process involved in evolution and try to explain where the process breaks down.

I understand that you believe that long ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it, the animals of the past were doing things that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do.

I also understand that we've never seen an animals produce what they aren't, only what they are. So when a reptile evolved into a bird, the reptile was producing something fundamentally different than what it was, thus, an animal "producing what it isn't, not what it is".

And I just can't rock with that.

Take your cats and dogs. Make a list of all the characteristics they have in common such as limbs, hair, organs and so on. Make a list of all the characteristics that are different. Most of these will be things that relate to appearance such as teeth, jaw, hair and so on. Now, although evolution does not say that dogs became cats or cats became dogs, it does say that in the very distant past they had a common ancestor.

Sure, according to the unproven theory...

Try to imagine two isolated populations of that ancestor and repeatedly make tiny changes in them over a long time. Can you not envision that one of your populations may ultimately end up looking like cats while the other ends up looking like dogs?

You, my friend, have just left science in one small paragraph (above). SMH. And it happened so fast that you didn't even notice it. Just that quick. You've just left science in the dust, and now you are in the "religious" dimension.

The driving force for what changes are retained and passed on is the response to changes in the environment. Characteristics that favour survival are more likely to be passed on thus retaining that trait. For example, in response to diminishing temperatures over long periods of time, longer hair will enhance survival. Individuals with longer hair will have a better survival rate and that trait will eventually predominate in the population. All traits are the result of the expression of genes and, since those genes are passed on through DNA via reproduction, the traits become locked in. It is not simply a case of temporary adaptation as some creationists may claim.

Having longer hair won't get you a different "kind" of animal...it will get you a different variety of the same animal.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 183 by For_The_Kingdom]

You sneer but look at the scaly feet of eagles and crocodiles, their shelled eggs, they also share similar bone structures that are unique to just birds and lizards.

I guess I just don't see what you see, old friend.