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]

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?

The opposite of random is methodical or systematic. There does not need to be a purpose or intent.

As an earlier example you said that there are no animals with a heart but no veins. Obviously if that animal was created it would not survive. Was its death planned or did it happen naturally? Was any supernatural force required to kill it?

Now imagine a chicken ranch with a fox inside. A chicken born with a longer/sharper beak will more likely survive compared to a chicken that is born blind. Is there any evidence of a supernatural being is causing this, or does it happen naturally?

Does natural selection make sense as an option?

[Bust Nak]

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.

With naturalistic mechanisms, obviously.

How can DNA know what is around it? Can it see the future?

It doesn't know, and it doesn't need to know.

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.

Nothing influencing it, other than the physical attribute of the chemical involved. So would you really call that nothing?

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.

Bad analogy because a) evolution doesn't need to get it right on the first try, b) ink don't have a natural affinity to form sentences.

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

I have a feeling, given what you said about half fish half mammal, that the "evolution, as it is taught today" in your mind, isn't actually evolution as taught. That or your biology teacher have some answering to do.

[Rufus21]

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.

Okay, so then you agree that evolution happens, you just haven't seen any evidence that evolution can cause a species to change to something else. Is that right?

[H.sapiens]

[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.

Dawkin's Weasel Experiment shows how misguided your view is.

[2timothy316]

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.

Okay, so then you agree that evolution happens, you just haven't seen any evidence that evolution can cause a species to change to something else. Is that right?

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. It also is contradictory. Random mutations but an orderly 'natural selection'. The very term 'selection' means to choose. How are the choices made? They are not random. That means they are planned. Planning denote intelligence but evolution says there is no intelligence. That makes no sense at all.

[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. Your argument here is nonsense based on the logical fallacies of argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance and god of the gaps. Your error is classic, and is so well documented that it is not really worth a rebuttal.

[Rufus21]

Random mutations but an orderly 'natural selection'. The very term 'selection' means to choose. How are the choices made? They are not random. That means they are planned.

As I showed above, something that is non-random is not necessarily planned. It does not necessarily come from some intelligent intervention. That has been explained several times in this thread.

[2timothy316]

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.

Bad analogy because a) evolution doesn't need to get it right on the first try, b) ink don't have a natural affinity to form sentences.

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

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.

[Bust Nak]

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?

[2timothy316]

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?