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?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 189 by For_The_Kingdom]

What would you say to someone who says they don't see the similarities between a Bull Terrier and a Pekingese?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 189 by For_The_Kingdom]

What would you say to someone who says they don't see the similarities between a Bull Terrier and a Pekingese?

I don't know, but then again I also don't know what to say to someone who don't see the similarities between Dikembe Mutombo and Yao Ming...because besides both being tall, the similarities between those two mirrors the similarities between a Bull Terrier and a Pekingese (off of mere looks).

All I DO know is, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 191 by For_The_Kingdom]

I haven't seen a single post from For_The_Kingdom that gives the least tiny hint he knows anything about biology or the theory of evolution or the concept of how it works over millions of years. How do you debate something you apparently know nothing about? How does one justify disagreeing out of ignorance?

Most of the non Christians here have read the Bible cover to cover and/or have been Christians themselves for years. They reject Christianity BECAUSE they have read the Bible, which remains the greatest argument against Christian belief.

However, the anti evolution arguments here are based on not understanding either the theory itself or he facts it is based upon.

[Neatras]

It's time we go over this one piece at a time.

FtK, what do you think it means to be a dog? Is it a hard rule? Or a convenient label for a population? Do dogs care what dogs are?

It's not "dogs producing dogs," it's "reproducing organisms producing offspring based on its own genetic material." Any other assumptions you have about biology that do not follow this principle are wrong. There is no "dog template" that all dogs have to follow, there is no "back to par" gene that causes genetically distinct organisms to continue to resemble dogs after successive generations. There is only the sequential production of new genetic recombination and information without any observable requirement to maintain homogeneity with other population members.

Why do dogs breed with each other? Because clustered populations of genetically compatible organisms are required for sexual reproduction. If that limitation were overcome, do you really believe that dogs would exclusively mate with dogs? The limiting factor behind what a dog can produce is not some divine mandate that it has to remain in its poorly defined, inconsistently maintained, and self-serving sophistry known as "kind," but a necessity to find an organism with close enough genetic material to produce offspring. But what you forget, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, is that:

Every single organism that exists is a unique recombination, with unique ranges of compatible genetic sequences needed to produce offspring. While members of the same 'population' are all but guaranteed to produce offspring (with probabilistic exceptions), each and every organism is more or less just expressing a range of genetic material with variable compatibility. And as more members of the population exist, the boundaries for this range can be affected by genetic drift.
After enough time, the range may exclude prior members of the population.

You continue to ignore what we say. You continue to fail to comprehend. But try, try, try, try, try, try, try some more until you finally understand and begin to take even a sliver of new knowledge in.

Every gene has variants called 'alleles'. At any given time in a population, some will have one version of the gene, others will have another. And there can be hundreds of alleles for a single gene. Over the course of several generations, the "dominant" allele (the one retained by the most members of the population) may change. I'm not saying that the allele itself is morphing. I'm saying that members of the population with that version of the gene may, through any number of means, become a minority, while another allele in other members of the population become more numerous. And I'm not saying this happens in a single generation either. It could be as simple as one breeding pair producing more offspring than another, but over successive generations, there is no divine mandate keeping any one allele dominant in a population. That is genetic drift.

Accumulate these changes. Let the dominant alleles change over generations. Let new genes be produced by novel means (and if you need to go over that topic, let me know. I will educate you if it's the last thing I do), and most importantly, get rid of this notion that our flimsy definition of 'dog' determines what a breeding pair in the animal kingdom care about.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I haven't seen a single post from For_The_Kingdom that gives the least tiny hint he knows anything about biology or the theory of evolution or the concept of how it works over millions of years.

Again, it never fails. Never. Whenever someone expresses the fact that they don't buy in to the ToE, they get accused of being ignorant, stupid, nave, etc. It never fails.

I don't base my disbelief in evolution upon what I don't know, I base it upon what I DO know.

How do you debate something you apparently know nothing about? How does one justify disagreeing out of ignorance?

You are right, I apparently don't know how a reptile can evolve into a bird. I am still trying to figure that one out.

Most of the non Christians here have read the Bible cover to cover and/or have been Christians themselves for years. They reject Christianity BECAUSE they have read the Bible, which remains the greatest argument against Christian belief.

If there is a "great" argument against Christianity, I haven't heard it yet.

However, the anti evolution arguments here are based on not understanding either the theory itself or he facts it is based upon.

Sure, because pro-evolutionists are so smart, and the anti-evolutionists are so dumb, right?

[Bust Nak]

Again, it never fails. Never. Whenever someone expresses the fact that they don't buy in to the ToE, they get accused of being ignorant, stupid, nave, etc. It never fails.

I don't base my disbelief in evolution upon what I don't know, I base it upon what I DO know.

If someone says "I don't buy in Christianity because I know Jesus didn't write the Bible, I base my disbelief upon what I DO know," would "ignorant" be an accurate word to describe that person's stance on Christianity, who seemingly does not understand that Jesus not being the author of the Bible is not a point against Christianity?

Sure, because pro-evolutionists are so smart, and the anti-evolutionists are so dumb, right?

Ignorance does not necessarily imply dumb.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 188 by For_The_Kingdom]

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".

In those two paragraphs you demonstrated that you did not understand any of what I wrote and, more importantly, that you simply do not understand evolution. I am astonished that you can still make statements like the bold part of the quote above after having the principle reduced to a simple explanation. You are blatantly wrong. In my experience, high school students have no trouble understanding how species evolved over time, even if they don't necessarily accept it due to religious conditioning. You should not continue to argue until you know exactly what it is you are arguing against.

An organism is defined by its DNA. All different species have different genes which are made up of DNA. Those genes determine the outcome of the organism as it develops from a single cell. Any slight change in the DNA may result in a slight change in the organism that results and that will be passed on to its offspring. Over a very long time those changes in DNA can accumulate to the extent that an organism removed countless generations from the original ancestor has significantly different DNA. If that occurs it will be a different species , or even 'kind', compared with its distant ancestor. Think of the game 'telephone' if it helps you get the idea.

[Danmark]

I haven't seen a single post from For_The_Kingdom that gives the least tiny hint he knows anything about biology or the theory of evolution or the concept of how it works over millions of years.

Again, it never fails. Never. Whenever someone expresses the fact that they don't buy in to the ToE, they get accused of being ignorant, stupid, nave, etc. It never fails.

I don't base my disbelief in evolution upon what I don't know, I base it upon what I DO know.

What is it you "DO know?"
What is it you know about the theory of evolution? Tell me. I don't want to accuse you of any kind of ignorance, but the arguments you've made suggest what little you may know of evolution is incorrect. Prove me wrong.

When you say "dogs only have dogs" as if that somehow argues against evolution, it suggests you do not understand that that the dog diverged from the modern gray wolf 135,000 years ago;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of ... divergence
... and that wolves diverged from a more catlike line of species 43 million years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_wolf

Given the time frame involved no one person is going to see any dramatic evolutionary change. Dogs will come from dogs... until they don't, maybe some 100 million years from now when the difference between current dogs and some offshoot becomes significant enough to be given a new name.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 188 by For_The_Kingdom]
Do you really believe the theory of evolution either claims or depends on the idea that a bird suddenly gives birth to a reptile? When you ask:

"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," it suggests this is what you think; that change that require hundred of billions of years take place in 40.

[For_The_Kingdom]

If someone says "I don't buy in Christianity because I know Jesus didn't write the Bible, I base my disbelief upon what I DO know," would "ignorant" be an accurate word to describe that person's stance on Christianity, who seemingly does not understand that Jesus not being the author of the Bible is not a point against Christianity?

No, but "irrational" or "illogical" might fit the bill.

Ignorance does not necessarily imply dumb.

Yeah, but some people feel so strong about evolution that calling an unbeliever of evolution ignorant is being to nice. They would rather go with dumb, or nave.