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?

[otseng]

The article itself claimed that Aetiocetus was never considered a strictly transitional form because of its non-ancestral relation to baleen whales. That means that the entire discussion, from the start, was piecing together how Aetiocetus informs phylogenic study of baleen whale ancestry due to its apparent traits that resemble what we would expect from a baleen whale's ancestor. So from the start, this discrepancy was fabricated by you.

In post 212, Danmark posted:

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

Here, it states Aetiocetus is a transitional form to modern gray whales. In the Wikipedia article, it states Aetiocetus is not a transitional form to modern gray whales.

I'm not fabricating the discrepancy, I'm merely pointing out the discrepancy.

Well it means that if we look at the branching tree of life, and observe the branch that modern baleen whales derive from, we should expect that, going back several hundred million years, there was a fork,, from which the ancestors to Aetiocetus and the ancestors to modern baleen whales diverged.

If there was a fork producing Aetiocetus and modern baleen whales along separate lines, then Aetiocetus cannot be considered a transitional form to modern baleen whales.

Once again, there is no genetic evidence that Pakicetus is a direct ancestor of modern whales. But because it is a part of the baleen whale's ancient lineage (due to the fact that it has traits it inherited from its ancestors, which are what we expect to find in a transitional form, in the location we expected to find it, in the part of the fossil record it's easy to predict at), it is considered to be a good approximation of what baleen whales' ancestors looked like in the transition from land-dwelling mammals to semi-aquatic mammals.

That's how paleontology works.

Just because two organisms share a physical trait does not necessarily mean there is ancestry.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 296 by otseng]

otseng posted:
The problem that I see is people just accept what other people say about evolution and just take what authorities say as a fact. Few people even bother to critically examine the theory of evolution.

An example from this thread. In post 212, it is claimed the Aetiocetus is "an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record" between "ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale." If you stop right there, one can believe this is strong evidence of evolution. But, few would go further to see if this is a valid argument.

Respose
From https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiab ... _evolution

First of all, it must be remembered that the fossil record is supporting evidence for evolution. This is contrary to the ideas put forward by creationists that state the gaps in the fossil record prove evolution to be false. If the fossil record simply did not exist it would make no difference to the validity of the theory of evolution — indeed, natural selection was initially formulated without the aid of fossil record, and subsequent DNA evidence can stand completely without it.

Disproving evolution first requires to look at what the theory predicts and see where it can be shown to make incorrect predictions. It is easy to be side-tracked by specifics of the theory, such as individual evolutionary pathways of certain features, and confuse these with what would falsify the overall theory of evolution by natural selection. Indeed, many creationists do this whenever a new discovery is made in biology that causes scientists to rethink some pieces of evolution. To avoid this problem, it is best to be clear what evolution is. It is based on three main principles: variation, heritability and selection. Given these three principles, evolution must occur, and many features of evolution appear given only these three guiding principles.[3] If any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory would be untenable.

Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

In order to topple the theory of evolution you will need to tackle the criteria listed above. The possible misclassification of a fossil as an intermediate species amounts to little against the overwhelming supporting evidence.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 299 by otseng]

Aetiocetus is a transitional form because it is a specific instance in the fossil record, in the correct location, that bears traits resembling a transition between a past trait and a modern trait. It is transitional because it represents an alteration of a past trait.

Do your links and articles, even once, claim it is a direct relative between Pakicetus and modern baleen whales? Or, more likely, do they claim that it is a transitional form between two distinct traits? I've checked the article on wikipedia and berkeley, and both of them make the same statement.

Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

There is no discrepancy aside from what you inject into the material, either by leaving out or misrepresenting the stated position of the theory of evolution.

[Elijah John]

In other words, you should've actually been interested in finding out about....

----

So I'll finish the homework you started.

----

Now I'm going to be very blunt: You used a quote mine, and that is a very bad, very dishonest thing to do.

-----

you are not representing the theory of evolution in good faith.

If you have beef with the theory of evolution, great. But cut this strawman out of it, I'm not happy with what you've done today.

Moderator Final Warning

The discussion/debate is informative and intersting. However it is tainted by your condescending and scolding tone.

Laced with personal attacks as well.

I've counted a total of nine warnings against you so far. So this final warning is long overdue.

Hopefully this one will get your attention and compel you to pay more attention to civility.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[101G]

[Replying to post 294 by brunumb]

I appreciate your opinion, but,

I notice you didn't address the scriptures supporting man was formed on day 3.

I suggest only the sexes was made on day 6.


I would like to hear your response addressing this question, thanks in advance.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 303 by 101G]

I notice you didn't address the scriptures supporting man was formed on day 3.

Scripture does not support man being formed on day 3. It is nothing more than an unsupported assertion in a fictional account of the origin of the world. All of the scientific evidence points to modern humans being around for something in the order of 200,000 years, nearly four and a half billion years after the earth formed.

If you wish to topple the theory of evolution, you will need to address the criteria I posted earlier. Prepare to be awarded a Nobel prize when you do. No one has achieved that goal over the 150 years that the theory has been consolidated by an ever increasing amount of evidence.

[101G]

[Replying to post 304 by brunumb]

first thanks for the response. but I must disagree with your assessment and with evolution of man

the bible is clear that man have been on this earth longer than most men think. but to the question at hand.

Man was formed on day three, and this same man was MADE into male and female on DAY 6.

here are my scriptures again, and i'll add an additional one.

first read Genesis chapter 1 starting at verse 9 through verse 13 which states that the grass, herbs and the trees came forth. ok, before this, man was formed, supportive scriptures, chapter 2 starting at verse 4 through verse 7. and when you read these verses, take note of the word "BEFORE". man was formed before, and remember this was day 3 according to Genesis 1:9-13

now another scriptures prove that man was here before the animals. Genesis 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof".

notice the the man was alone before God formed the animals out of the ground. but another revelation. since the man was alone, Eve the woman was not yet formed or with the man, remember he was alone. and two, God brought the animals he had formed to Adam.

but here's another revelation. every fowl of the air, and "EVERY" living creature that was was brought to Adam. and the flying creatures was made on day 5, see Genesis 1:20-23. remember because the man was alone, God said it was not good for him to be alone, then God formed the animals.

so there is another scripture that debunk the six day forming of the Man, and evolution at the same time.

Only Eve, the woman, the female was formed on the 6th day. only the sexes was CREATED/MADE on day 6.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 304 by brunumb]

first thanks for the response. but I must disagree with your assessment and with evolution of man

You can quote all the scripture you like, it holds no sway by itself in this forum. If you can show both scripture and peer reviewed science that point to the same conclusion then you've got something.

You may also want to read your Bible a little more closely and notice the blatant contradictions in the two different creation stories.

According to the first story, man and woman was formed on day 6, 3 days after the vegatation:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.� And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

...

23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

...

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.�

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

...

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

A few pages later, in story number two:

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So, story 1 has vegetation first and story 2 has vegetation second. Story 1 has man and woman coming last (day 6), story 2 has man by himself early on - no exact day given, but right at the beginning before vegetation and animals.

Clearly either one, or both are completely wrong. Given scientific evidence, we can rule them both out, but even if we ignore reality and stick with the Bible there are serious problems.

[101G]

[Replying to post 306 by benchwarmer]

thanks for the reply, just answer this, Genesis 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him".

Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof".

Just STOP and think, if Adam was alone, and then God formed the Animal for a help meet for man, guess who was here first? .... the man, read those verses again.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 307 by 101G]

Just STOP and think, if Adam was alone, and then God formed the Animal for a help meet for man, guess who was here first? .... the man, read those verses again.

There was no Adam. Other animals evolved on the earth long before humans appeared. If an asteroid had not collided with the earth, the dinosaurs that had ruled the planet for millions of years might still be here now.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of the origins of species based on accumulated data relating to life forms on this planet, the fossil record, DNA and numerous other observations. If evolution is wrong, how else do you explain all of those observations and data that otherwise fit so neatly in the theory? The Bible explains none of that.