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?

[2timothy316]

Evolution does not explain how matter came about; it deals with how life evolved on the planet and to a large extent it explains a lot, while much remains unexplained.

While it is the parts that 'remains unexplained' and apparently according to some, can't be explained that I'm focused on. Like a fish evolving into another species. Or any cross species changes. All the life that has been on this planet we can't find one example? This planet should be littered with examples of reptile-mammals as slow they say evolution is. We have the history of the horse but we only can find smaller or larger versions. These smaller and larger versions even live at the same time. But not a single fossil of a reptile-horse. All we get are pictures with lines but no half reptile half mammal remains. While some swiftly believe that, there is no hard evidence to be found.

[Rufus21]

The egg eh? Who laid the egg? Who fertilized it?

An animal that was almost exactly like a chicken mated with an animal almost exactly like a rooster. Their offspring was a chicken.

Although trying to find the "first" chicken would be like trying to find the "first" white pixel in this image:



The changes are so gradual that you can't really pinpoint the exact change.

If 'natural selection' doesn't know then how did male and female chickens come after the egg?

They came from male and female parents, just like they had been doing for millions of years.

[Rufus21]

Like a fish evolving into another species.

This was answered in post 139.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 764#891764

Or any cross species changes.

Like a mule from a horse and a donkey?

This planet should be littered with examples of reptile-mammals as slow they say evolution is.

What about the one I showed in post 117?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 731#891731

All the life that has been on this planet we can't find one example?

We can find hundreds. Again, post 117.

[2timothy316]

The egg eh? Who laid the egg? Who fertilized it?

An animal that was almost exactly like a chicken mated with an animal almost exactly like a rooster. Their offspring was a chicken.

Although trying to find the "first" chicken would be like trying to find the "first" white pixel in this image:



The changes are so gradual that you can't really pinpoint the exact change.

Are you saying that the evolution theory doesn't have any direct evidence of an answer? So far I have noticed people giving less and less evidence and giving more analogies and vague puzzles. Is that what evolution really is, not fossils and hard evidence but analogies and riddles?

If 'natural selection' doesn't know then how did male and female chickens come after the egg?

They came from male and female parents, just like they had been doing for millions of years.

But when was the split between male and female? Not just for the chickens but for every animal that has male and female? Do we at least have a fossil for the first ones that stopped reproducing asexually? Do we have a bunch of fossils of organisms that were both male and reproduced asexually and started hooking up with a female counterpart?

[William]

[Replying to post 149 by marco]

Evolution does not explain how matter came about;

I think it would be prudent to say that biological evolution 'does not explain how matter came about' in the context of the current line of debate.

Evolution of the universe (matter) is essential to the process of biological evolution and they are not separate from one another as being totally different systems. Rather, one is an aspect of the other. It's all 'evolution' in that regard.

You are correct though. Evolution (of the universe) is unable to explain its own existence as it is simply a process..or though not a simple process... as processes do not explain themselves. Only consciousness can explain (or attempt to explain) processes.

In relation to consciousness within biological forms of matter, it 'explains its own existence as either "GOD did it" (the opening of Pandora's box, so to speak) or "it did itself accidentally with no mind involved' (the emergent property of brains).

One interpretation requires no mind to explain the mind except the mind which explains the mind.

The other decides that such an interpretation is too magical to process as 'real' or 'truthful' and implies limitations upon the mind which are in themselves unrealistic due to the ability of the mind to think outside of the material box and inside Pandora's box, again, so to speak.

Imagination is a strange and delightful property/function of the mind as without it, we would be a totally different species. Couple that with our particular forms, and - at least for me - that is sufficient evidence to show that a greater mind created this reality (through biological evolution) and a greater mind still, created the universe.

Bearing in mind (no pun intended) that imagination is an integral aspect of the mind, it stands to reason that the greater (than our individual mind) which created the life forms upon this planet, did so imaginatively, and the still greater mind which created the universe also did so imaginatively.

To grasp the significance of that idea, think about how well your own imagination has served you regarding creativity and forward planning etc... and how different you would be without that.

To point - When I say 'did so imaginatively' I am not excluding from that process, serious thought and purpose or the fact of the limitation therein due to the material available for use in conjunction with creativity or how individuate consciousness placed within biological forms might react or how this might be worked around, given enough time and space, which 'coincidentally', there seems to be plenty of hereabouts.

There is more than a hint of forward planning in the process of evolution. It is not something which is just reacting to the moment.

[H.sapiens]

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?

Because I avoid credulity.

So you can see that you fall into the trap of making an argument from incredulity? The problem is not one of credulity but rather ignorance. You can not truly grasp the evidence for evolution without graduate level training in paleontology and undergrad courses such as mathematical ecology, embryology and comparative anatomy. Then you can understand the evidence and will stop rehashing the same old objections that others who similarly rely on prejudgement rather than education continue to make by rote.

[Rufus21]

Are you saying that the evolution theory doesn't have any direct evidence of an answer?

Of course they do. They have dinosaurs, they have chickens and they have all the animals in between. My point is that the changes are so gradual that it is difficult to say when the first non-chicken gave birth to the first chicken. But that's really just a classification problem, not a problem with evolution. Evolution doesn't care what we call the animals or where we start labeling them differently, it just keeps making different animals.

But when was the split between male and female? Not just for the chickens but for every animal that has male and female?

That's a great question. Personally I don't know the answer but I'm sure it can be found through Google:

https://www.quora.com/At-what-point-in- ... nd-females

Maybe even a fellow member can fill us in. I would love to learn the answer.

[2timothy316]

There should cross-species examples of fish to mammal everywhere. There is not a single one.

So, for example, a fish transitioning into a crocodile?

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... _tiktaalik

Just Google "Transitional Forms". Here's a start:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... e/lines_03

I don't understand how you can keep saying there is "not a single example" when a simple Google search shows at least one hundred.

Not quite. There is no evidence that this went on to be a croc. The tiktaalik didn't have lungs and there was no evidence that it was developing them. You need the next animal in the series. The tiktaalik with both lungs and gills. The next one in the series would have to have something like the organ like a lungfish but look like a tiktaalik. Nothing yet.

Eels look like snakes but they are a fish. Like they could be a transitional animal but they are not. So a fish that looks like a gator is not good enough as there is another explanation in that we have animals living today that look like they are about change into something else. But they never ever do. We should have species changing out their gills for lungs all the time with the number of animals in the sea. But we don't.

Here's another problem with proclaiming an animal as a transitional animal. Take a look at the pic below. It looks like the evolution of wolf to coyote. But it's not. All 3 of these live at the same time. Not millions of years ago but they live together today. On the left is a wolf, the right a coyote. The middle is a coywolf. It was not the result of evolution but a wolf mating with a coyote. This happened with no human intervention. It's things like this that make me skeptical of declaring something a missing link because we have animals today that look like they are missing links but they are not.

[2timothy316]

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?

Because I avoid credulity.

So you can see that you fall into the trap of making an argument from incredulity? The problem is not one of credulity but rather ignorance. You can not truly grasp the evidence for evolution without graduate level training in paleontology and undergrad courses such as mathematical ecology, embryology and comparative anatomy. Then you can understand the evidence and will stop rehashing the same old objections that others who similarly rely on prejudgement rather than education continue to make by rote.

You sound like a priest. Only he'd be telling me that I couldn't truly grasp God because I didn't go to some university for priest. How about people stop making excuses for why they can't explain some things rather calling me ignorant. Just say you can't explain it. Just like I'd tell a priest about the trinity. If you can't explain it then just say, I don't know. I'd respect that rather than insulting my intelligence. One might say that person that believes evolution hook line and sinker might be delusional. But how does that help the conversation? There are people with degrees in all of those things but don't accept the theory of evolution. So what do you have to say to those folks?

[Rufus21]

Not quite. There is no evidence that this went on to be a croc.

Okay, but it is evidence of fish transitioning into reptiles, right? Maybe his great-great-grandchildren weren't crocs, but they were an intermediate between different vertibrates. You can name it whatever you want, it is an example of a fish transitioning into another form.

The tiktaalik didn't have lungs and there was no evidence that it was developing them. You need the next animal in the series. The tiktaalik with both lungs and gills. The next one in the series would have to have something like the organ like a lungfish but look like a tiktaalik. Nothing yet.

This goes back to the picture-a-day discussion. Do you need to see a complete unedited video, or can you be confident only seeing one picture every day. If the pictures show the transition over time, do you need one every minute? Every day? Every year? What if thousands of other people doing a picture every day? How much would you need to see to understand the big picture?

It looks like the evolution of wolf to coyote. But it's not. All 3 of these live at the same time.

And how do we know that they lived at the same time? Science! [trumpets blaring]

So this is something that scientists take into account when they are looking at fossil records. Also, genetics has quickly become a better way to compare life forms and check ancestry, so fossils are going the way of the dinosaur.