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?

[Danmark]

The evidence for evolution and the fact it occurs over millions of years is so overwhelming it is considered a fact as well as a theory.

Evolution is both fact and theory....
... the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Christian theism by definition is not a fact, it is a belief. Now you are just misusing language.

Science is supposed to be based a methodology based on observation, experiment, and prediction.

1.Observation: You've never observed macroevolution (reptile-bird).

2. Experiment: You've never conducted an experiment which would lead you to the macro direction.

3. Prediction: Based on the lack of #1 & #2, there is no way to predict when such changes will ever occur, if at all.

So basically, evolution (macro) technically aint science. Now of course, many of you would like to think that it is science, but it really isn't. It is a presupposition, which is fine. But when you start calling presuppositions facts, that's when it becomes an issue.

You keep repeating this absurd fallacy that unless a person directly observes something it is not proved.
This is a false claim, that only direct evidence is allowable in YOUR version of science, which is not science at all. Let me give you an illustration from the law.

The judge instructs the jury in every Jury trial:

"Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact.

You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either can be used to prove any fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence."

This instruction is frequently illustrated by the question of whether or not snow was falling during the night. Direct evidence: The witness testifies he woke in the middle of the night and watched snow fall.
Indirect or circumstantial evidence:
There is testimony that before dark there was no snow on the ground; that in the morning three inches of snow was on the ground, thus proving it snowed during the night.

Your claim is like that of the man who sees the evidence of the snow on the ground that was bare the night before and yet says, "You didn't prove snow fell because you didn't actually see it.

[otseng]

Sorry to rejoin the debate so late, but I have a little free time now to discuss this.

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

Why do people not believe in one tiny transition at a time from microbe to man? Perhaps because the fossil record has no evidence of this?

At this point the fossil evidence is all but irrelevant, the genetic data alone is more than adequate to make the point.

What do you mean the fossil evidence is all but irrelevant? Do you acknowledge that the fossil record does not support evolution?

As for the genetic evidence, sure we can discuss that.

[Danmark]

Sorry to rejoin the debate so late, but I have a little free time now to discuss this.

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

Why do people not believe in one tiny transition at a time from microbe to man? Perhaps because the fossil record has no evidence of this?

At this point the fossil evidence is all but irrelevant, the genetic data alone is more than adequate to make the point.

What do you mean the fossil evidence is all but irrelevant? Do you acknowledge that the fossil record does not support evolution?

As for the genetic evidence, sure we can discuss that.

I believe his point was that the genetic evidence is so powerful that even by itself it proves evolution. This was a dramatic flourish, not an admission of the lack of fossil evidence. For example:

A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow ... wSk4Ms1SCM:
Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... e/lines_03

[For_The_Kingdom]

The changes involved in what you call "macro" evolution (which isn't a scientific term ... just something theists use to artificially distinguish between small evolutionary changes which they accept because this doesn't torpedo the biblical creation story, and larger evolutionary changes that create new species and things like reptiles to birds, which does not jive with biblical myth) do take time.

Well first off, it is a distinction that needs to be made. For the simple fact that one is science, and one isn't. Micro evolution (changes within the kind) is something we can see, we can observe it. And some people have been able to conduct experiments to give new breeds of a specific kind of animal (leonberger dogs, for example).

Macro evolution (changes to different kind) is something we cannot see, and no experiment can be done to produce such effects, despite any selective breeding measures or any other measures.

The evolutionist would like to believe that give enough time, those micro level changes will lead to macro changes...which is fine to believe, but such a belief ain't science.

Second, you call it a "biblical myth", yet this "myth" said that animals were made according to their "kinds"..and what do we see today? Animals producing "according to their kinds". Dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc.

So I will go with the myth on this one...because after all, it is what I see.

So it is impossible for large changes to occur in 40 years for large animals like reptiles and birds, because such changes are only the result of a cumulation of many small changes, each taking possibly many generations to occur.

Sure, according to the theory.

The time frames you need to think about are multiples of one generation cycle. If a bacterium has a lifetime of only 30 minutes, then there are 48 generational cycles in a single 24 hour day. In that case evolutionary changes happen much faster (still possibly many thousands or even millions of generations) compared to something like a human with a 25 year (or so) generational cycle. And of course there are plenty of bacterial diseases in humans that have developed resistance to vaccines in relatively short periods of time. If you could see these bacteria with your naked eye you would call those changes "macro" evolution, but it is no different than the reptile to bird sequence of which we do know a great deal about.

I said whether suddenly, or gradually, I don't see the evidence for it. Seeing a reptile grow feathers over 40 million years is just as absurd as seeing it grow feathers suddenly, in 40 seconds.

The evolutionist would like to think that by throwing the element of time into the equation, that this somehow increases the chance of his presupposition ringing true. But it doesn't. If all forms of life disappeared on Earth, EXCEPT dogs...and these dogs began to reproduce over 400 million years, why am I to believe that these dogs would EVER been to produce nondogs in all of that time? Why?

So time is a big factor in evolutionary change

Of course it is, based on the "In x million of years, anything can happen" approach.

, and there is no such things a "micro" and "macro" evolution ... just terminology made up by anti-evolutionists to create an artificial distinction between things they are OK with believing, and things they are not.

Not at all. Macroevolution doesn't necessarily undermine the Christian worldview (I can only go by my religion, not others). In fact, there are some Christians who believe in evolution, and I have beef with them as well.

I am just saying that I don't see any evidence for it either way, and not only that, but I see evidence AGAINST it.

[otseng]

Evolution is simply a description of a process that living things undergo as a result of genetic variation in subsequent generations.

Sure, if that's your definition of evolution, I fully accept it.

But, it's not the same thing as "microbe to man." This I do not accept.

Then let's just say that life is eternal and be done with gods creating it.

The only ones I know that claim that life can be eternal are theists...

I think a lot of people reject evolution because it is not compatible with a literal Biblical interpretation.

Perhaps. But, I reject it because the evidence is not convincing.

[Neatras]

Evolution is simply a description of a process that living things undergo as a result of genetic variation in subsequent generations.

Sure, if that's your definition of evolution, I fully accept it.

But, it's not the same thing as "microbe to man." This I do not accept.

Then let's just say that life is eternal and be done with gods creating it.

The only ones I know that claim that life can be eternal are theists...

I think a lot of people reject evolution because it is not compatible with a literal Biblical interpretation.

Perhaps. But, I reject it because the evidence is not convincing.

Well, I hope you leave your mind open to change. Because we're collecting more evidence by the day, and it's pointing in a suspicious direction...

Did you know that the bridge from single-celled organisms to multi-cellular structures has already been crossed in a lab setting?

[For_The_Kingdom]

You keep repeating this absurd fallacy that unless a person directly observes something it is not proved.

This is a false claim, that only direct evidence is allowable in YOUR version of science, which is not science at all. Let me give you an illustration from the law.

The judge instructs the jury in every Jury trial:

"Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

That is my point; if we observed macro evolution in nature, then I wouldn't be on here debating you about whether or not it is true. I am certainly not debating you about whether micro evolution is true, based on the simple fact that I CAN observe it, so there is nothing to debate.

You use the courtroom/law illustration, which also proves my point. The observational aspect of it would be similar to eye witness testimony..and eye witness testimony are like gems to lawyers.

So in this "case", we don't have any eye witness testimony for macroevolution.

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact.

You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either can be used to prove any fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence."

This instruction is frequently illustrated by the question of whether or not snow was falling during the night. Direct evidence: The witness testifies he woke in the middle of the night and watched snow fall.
Indirect or circumstantial evidence:
There is testimony that before dark there was no snow on the ground; that in the morning three inches of snow was on the ground, thus proving it snowed during the night.

Your claim is like that of the man who sees the evidence of the snow on the ground that was bare the night before and yet says, "You didn't prove snow fell because you didn't actually see it.

If I previously observed snow fall on the ground before, then I would be able to determine that..

1. Snow can fall on the ground
2. The snow would have fallen on the ground whether I was there to see it fall or not

Even if I didn't see the snow fall on this particular occasion, I would still know that it is possible for snow to fall on the ground based on previous observation, so the possibility of whether snow can fall would never come into question.

Macro evolution, on the other hand..

[Neatras]

You keep repeating this absurd fallacy that unless a person directly observes something it is not proved.

This is a false claim, that only direct evidence is allowable in YOUR version of science, which is not science at all. Let me give you an illustration from the law.

The judge instructs the jury in every Jury trial:

"Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

That is my point; if we observed macro evolution in nature, then I wouldn't be on here debating you about whether or not it is true. I am certainly not debating you about whether micro evolution is true, based on the simple fact that I CAN observe it, so there is nothing to debate.

You use the courtroom/law illustration, which also proves my point. The observational aspect of it would be similar to eye witness testimony..and eye witness testimony are like gems to lawyers.

So in this "case", we don't have any eye witness testimony for macroevolution.

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact.

You are to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either can be used to prove any fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence."

This instruction is frequently illustrated by the question of whether or not snow was falling during the night. Direct evidence: The witness testifies he woke in the middle of the night and watched snow fall.
Indirect or circumstantial evidence:
There is testimony that before dark there was no snow on the ground; that in the morning three inches of snow was on the ground, thus proving it snowed during the night.

Your claim is like that of the man who sees the evidence of the snow on the ground that was bare the night before and yet says, "You didn't prove snow fell because you didn't actually see it.

If I previously observed snow fall on the ground before, then I would be able to determine that..

1. Snow can fall on the ground
2. The snow would have fallen on the ground whether I was there to see it fall or not

Even if I didn't see the snow fall on this particular occasion, I would still know that it is possible for snow to fall on the ground based on previous observation, so the possibility of whether snow can fall would never come into question.

Macro evolution, on the other hand..

There's a known gene sequence that can turn scales into rudimentary feathers. This was discovered well after reptilian evolution into birds was proposed, and further supports the case. We're finding more and more evidence of how we can progress from one gene sequence to another.

Additionally, we've identified genes responsible for turning off the development of teeth in bird embryos. The very fact the teeth appear at all supports the idea that
the teeth were embryonic genes which would be inherited from distant dinosaur ancestors. Embryology has a lot to say about evolution, and diving in would give you no end of evidence to support the tree of life.

[H.sapiens]

The changes involved in what you call "macro" evolution (which isn't a scientific term ... just something theists use to artificially distinguish between small evolutionary changes which they accept because this doesn't torpedo the biblical creation story, and larger evolutionary changes that create new species and things like reptiles to birds, which does not jive with biblical myth) do take time.

Well first off, it is a distinction that needs to be made. For the simple fact that one is science, and one isn't. Micro evolution (changes within the kind) is something we can see, we can observe it. And some people have been able to conduct experiments to give new breeds of a specific kind of animal (leonberger dogs, for example).

Macro evolution (changes to different kind) is something we cannot see, and no experiment can be done to produce such effects, despite any selective breeding measures or any other measures.

The evolutionist would like to believe that give enough time, those micro level changes will lead to macro changes...which is fine to believe, but such a belief ain't science.

Second, you call it a "biblical myth", yet this "myth" said that animals were made according to their "kinds"..and what do we see today? Animals producing "according to their kinds". Dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc.

So I will go with the myth on this one...because after all, it is what I see.

So it is impossible for large changes to occur in 40 years for large animals like reptiles and birds, because such changes are only the result of a cumulation of many small changes, each taking possibly many generations to occur.

Sure, according to the theory.

The time frames you need to think about are multiples of one generation cycle. If a bacterium has a lifetime of only 30 minutes, then there are 48 generational cycles in a single 24 hour day. In that case evolutionary changes happen much faster (still possibly many thousands or even millions of generations) compared to something like a human with a 25 year (or so) generational cycle. And of course there are plenty of bacterial diseases in humans that have developed resistance to vaccines in relatively short periods of time. If you could see these bacteria with your naked eye you would call those changes "macro" evolution, but it is no different than the reptile to bird sequence of which we do know a great deal about.

I said whether suddenly, or gradually, I don't see the evidence for it. Seeing a reptile grow feathers over 40 million years is just as absurd as seeing it grow feathers suddenly, in 40 seconds.

The evolutionist would like to think that by throwing the element of time into the equation, that this somehow increases the chance of his presupposition ringing true. But it doesn't. If all forms of life disappeared on Earth, EXCEPT dogs...and these dogs began to reproduce over 400 million years, why am I to believe that these dogs would EVER been to produce nondogs in all of that time? Why?

So time is a big factor in evolutionary change

Of course it is, based on the "In x million of years, anything can happen" approach.

, and there is no such things a "micro" and "macro" evolution ... just terminology made up by anti-evolutionists to create an artificial distinction between things they are OK with believing, and things they are not.

Not at all. Macroevolution doesn't necessarily undermine the Christian worldview (I can only go by my religion, not others). In fact, there are some Christians who believe in evolution, and I have beef with them as well.

I am just saying that I don't see any evidence for it either way, and not only that, but I see evidence AGAINST it.

What defines (in your mind) the dog "kind"? Does it include the urocyanids (island and gray foxes). Does it include the vulpini (some of the remaining foxes)? How about the Cerdocyonina (the rest of the foxes)? How about the two distinct group of jackals and the african and asian wild dogs? Or ... does dog kind extend to all or part of the carnivora? That's over 280 species of placental mammals. Frankly if you can't exactly define what dog "kind" is you have no legitimate business being part of this conversation, that would make you, taxonomically, just a troll.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 216 by For_The_Kingdom]

Even if I didn't see the snow fall on this particular occasion, I would still know that it is possible for snow to fall on the ground based on previous observation, so the possibility of whether snow can fall would never come into question.

Is your argument essentially that it is not possible for a single-celled organism to become a large, complex, multi-celled organism because you have never observed it?