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 213 by For_The_Kingdom]

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.

You appear to accept the concept of micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. Could you please summarise the mechanism within organisms that leads to the changes that occur in micro-evolution.

You didn't address a question I asked earlier. May I ask again please. 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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 230 by brunumb]

brunumb ... you may have already read this earlier thread, but if not have a look here:

viewtopic.php?t=30848

(go to the main Science and Religion page and scroll down to the Abiogenesis thread started July 19, 2017). That involved a lot of back and forth with FTK on this same subject, and much of it is being repeated in this thread. No luck at the time convincing him that the whole "micro" vs. "macro" thing is an artificial separation that has no relation to the actual ToE, but maybe you can create some better angles to attack the issue. Whatever you do, don't bring up the Miller-Urey experiment in this thread or a big tangent on abiogenesis may break out!

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 231 by DrNoGods]

brunumb ... you may have already read this earlier thread, but if not have a look here:
viewtopic.php?t=30848
(go to the main Science and Religion page and scroll down to the Abiogenesis thread started July 19, 2017).

Thanks DrNoGods. I was not aware of that discussion and will check out what has been addressed.

It is a bit discouraging that concepts are simply dismissed without any attempt to show how they are wrong. It's one thing to accept 'micro-evolution' and dismiss 'macro-evolution', but another to be unable to explain how one actually works while the other doesn't from a biological perspective. There is not much of a debate when the response gets reduced to the equivalent of 'tis not.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 230 by brunumb]

brunumb ... you may have already read this earlier thread, but if not have a look here:

viewtopic.php?t=30848

(go to the main Science and Religion page and scroll down to the Abiogenesis thread started July 19, 2017). That involved a lot of back and forth with FTK on this same subject, and much of it is being repeated in this thread. No luck at the time convincing him that the whole "micro" vs. "macro" thing is an artificial separation that has no relation to the actual ToE, but maybe you can create some better angles to attack the issue. Whatever you do, don't bring up the Miller-Urey experiment in this thread or a big tangent on abiogenesis may break out!

No luck convincing me that a reptile evolved into a bird some 400 million years ago, either. You are right, most of this recent stuff on this thread has been regurgitated from previous threads.

Nothing like expressing disbelief in evolution, as that will certainly bring every naturalist out of the woodwork, and I get it.

It is because almost all naturalists (if not all) don't believe in a supernatural reality (God)...and since they don't believe in God, evolution (macroevolution) is the only game in town, as they have to find a way, somehow, to explain the origin of species...and for them, evolution (macro) is the only game in town.

So, it is literally their religion, as they believe it, they appeal to it, and they defend it...about only a few steps shy of all-out worshiping it.

But what they fail to (or refuse to) acknowledge is the fact that macroevolution (and naturalism, in general), is nothing but magic without the magician....while theism is magic WITH the magician.

What is the difference? Well, when the magician pulls the rabbit out of the hat, at least we can say that the magician caused the rabbit to appear. But magic without the magician would be for the rabbit to just pop in to being without any magician or cause whatsoever, which defies all logic and reasoning.

The bottom line is; long ago, when no one was around to see it, something spectacular happened...and that something didn't have anything to do with science or nature...and I know most of you folks on here don't like, agree, or believe that, but hey..

I don't make reality, I just live in it.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 233 by For_The_Kingdom]

I have yet to see you explain how your version of evolution actually works FTK. Also, you have not explained what is wrong with the mechanism of evolution. You would be a lot more credible if you were able to do that instead of resorting to nothing more than denial. I don't think you can. Your rejection of evolution is not based on any principles. It is simply a consequence of cognitive dissonance preventing you from addressing the issue head on and that's because it challenges your beliefs.

[For_The_Kingdom]

It's one thing to accept 'micro-evolution' and dismiss 'macro-evolution', but another to be unable to explain how one actually works while the other doesn't from a biological perspective. There is not much of a debate when the response gets reduced to the equivalent of 'tis not.

Um, you are the one making the claim that "it works" without providing evidence for the claim. I believe in evolution, but on the micro level. Why? Because that is all I have observational, experimental, and predictable evidence for.

If you want me (or care) that I believe in something additional to this evolution thing, then I need additional evidence.

But even if you were to provide good, solid evidence for macro evolution, that STILL wouldn't undermine my theistic beliefs, because Christianity could still be true regardless of how God orchestrated his creation....

And not only that, but I don't believe in macro evolution only on the basis of lacking evidence...but because I have too much evidence AGAINST it. As DrNoGod alluded to (and reminded me), there is a serious abiogenesis problem that evolution has to deal with (which we need not get in to).

But yeah...2 main reasons..

1. Not enough evidence for it
2. Enough evidence against it

Each of those two reasons stand on its own.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I have yet to see you explain how your version of evolution actually works FTK.

It works like this; big dogs, little dogs, hairy dogs, hairless dogs, tall dogs, short dogs, etc....all dogs......sure, many different varieties, but nevertheless...all dogs.

Isn't that what we see (observation)? Can't we get more varieties of dogs with more selective breeding (experimentation)? Can't we even predict which kind of dog we will wind up with after the selective breeding (prediction)? In other words, SCIENCE!!!

That is my version. I can actually test my version. You, on the other hand, are relying on the unseen. You, on the other hand, are relying on faith.

Also, you have not explained what is wrong with the mechanism of evolution.

There are limits to the gene pool. That is what is wrong with your version of evolution.

You would be a lot more credible if you were able to do that instead of resorting to nothing more than denial. I don't think you can. Your rejection of evolution is not based on any principles. It is simply a consequence of cognitive dissonance preventing you from addressing the issue head on and that's because it challenges your beliefs.

It doesn't challenge my belief. Macroevolution doesn't stop Jesus from dying on the cross for the sins of mankind.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You appear to accept the concept of micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. Could you please summarise the mechanism within organisms that leads to the changes that occur in micro-evolution.

I don't know. Genetics.

You didn't address a question I asked earlier. May I ask again please. 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?

Depends.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 236 by For_The_Kingdom]

It works like this; big dogs, little dogs, hairy dogs, hairless dogs, tall dogs, short dogs, etc....all dogs......sure, many different varieties, but nevertheless...all dogs.

The identity of a living organism and its characteristics are determined by DNA. Change the DNA and you change the characteristics. Change enough of the DNA and you change the organism.

I notice that you still have not explained how your version of evolution works. You can't begin to do that without reference to DNA. Care to try?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 235 by For_The_Kingdom]

Um, you are the one making the claim that "it works" without providing evidence for the claim. I believe in evolution, but on the micro level. Why? Because that is all I have observational, experimental, and predictable evidence for.

The evidence is out there in hundreds of thousands of books, papers and articles. You have ready access to all of it. It is ridiculous to expect it to be presented in a few paragraphs of a discussion forum. You won't even address a summary of the basic principles let alone consider the evidence.

If you want to discredit evolution you need to demonstrate where the mechanism actually fails or where evidence specifically contradicts the theory. You can try, but no one has managed to do that in the 150 years since Darwin published his breakthrough work.