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]

If evolution was true then we should see something in the mid stages of evolution. Nothing like that has ever been seen as it was claimed.

That evidence exists in almost every life form if you know where to look:



In fact, I could argue that every single extant life form is in the mid stages of evolution since it will eventually change into something else (assuming it survives).

So there is an animal that has a heart but no veins? A fish with lungs but can't get out of the water. These are disasters not helpful evolutionary changes. The amount of life on this planet that has lived and died is astounding. With all this evolution that is supposed to be going on there is not one, not a single instance of a fossil where there is an animal changing into something else completely. I wonder sometimes if evolutionist really give anything thought to what they are supporting. For folks that are supposed to be highly skeptical where is that skepticism on these questions?

On a note of abiogenesis and Richard Dawkins. Did you know that he is on record saying, 'something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe'.


Can really anything that guys says be trusted? That guy is like a priest for atheist. Just like a preacher saying, 'I'll show you what truth is, listen to me and only me because I'm the only one that really knows'. Isn't that what a religion is, a group of people that explains the mysteries of the world and they are the only ones that really know and no one else is right?

[Rufus21]

Evolution is supposed to be without intelligent influence. What you showed me here was human involvement in a lab to get a particular result with bacteria.

They put the bacteria in a dish and left it alone. There was absolutely no human interference.

There is no pics of a something in mid evolution. Not a single one.

As I said, every living thing is in mid evolution. A Google search will bring up all the pictures you need. Visit your local natural history museum for even more proof. Life forms change over time. That change is based on genetic mutations and some form of selection (usually a natural form). There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Adding a flagella to an organism that already can add a flagella to itself is not evolution as the adding of a flagella is already in its DNA code.

Changes to the DNA are not considered evolution? Isn't that the very definition? If Humans suddenly started being born with 3 arms, would you not call that a genetic mutation?

It sounds like the reason you don't believe in evolution is because you don't know what it is. Once you understand it you will see proof of it in every living thing.

[Rufus21]

So there is an animal that has a heart but no veins? A fish with lungs but can't get out of the water.

Probably there were.

These are disasters not helpful evolutionary changes.

I agree, which is why those animals died. That's where natural selection takes place. The mutations are random, but the ones that are detrimental do not survive and do not pass on their genes. It's as simple as that.

The amount of life on this planet that has lived and died is astounding.

Again I agree. Imagine how horrible a creator would have to be to fail that many times.

[2timothy316]

Evolution is supposed to be without intelligent influence. What you showed me here was human involvement in a lab to get a particular result with bacteria.

They put the bacteria in a dish and left it alone. There was absolutely no human interference.

Note the bold please. This they weren't humans? Was it a pack of bears? Is this the natural place to find bacteria in nature? Just because they moved them to a dish doesn't mean what they observed has never happened before. There is nothing supporting evolution here. Do ants that grow wings to migrate evidence of sudden change in ants? Its not even something that happens in ants all the time. They can stay in one place for years and never show wings. Yet you expect me to believe because a bacteria added another flagella that's proof of evolution? It's got to be better than that.

Adding a flagella to an organism that already can add a flagella to itself is not evolution as the adding of a flagella is already in its DNA code.

Changes to the DNA are not considered evolution? Isn't that the very definition? If Humans suddenly started being born with 3 arms, would you not call that a genetic mutation?

It sounds like the reason you don't believe in evolution is because you don't know what it is. Once you understand it you will see proof of it in every living thing.

No. The experiment said nothing about if the bacteria didn't already have to ability to add it's DNA. Its like the ants and their wings. The DNA code for wings was already there but the switch to 'turn on' the cells that produce wings. Why is that not possible for the bacteria? As far as I know, humans have no switch in their DNA for a 3rd arm. Most mutations of that type are not part of the evolutionary theory.

"Not all mutations matter to evolution
Since all cells in our body contain DNA, there are lots of places for mutations to occur; however, not all mutations matter for evolution. Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won't be passed onto offspring."

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... cle/evo_18

Just because a person gets 3rd arm it doesn't support evolution.

[2timothy316]

The amount of life on this planet that has lived and died is astounding.

Again I agree. Imagine how horrible a creator would have to be to fail that many times.

I see you didn't address my point.

So are we done talking about why people reject evolution and the lack of evidence for it and moving on to why people reject God? I'm sure there is a thread for that somewhere but it's off topic here. Though I think we have hit the real nerve here as to why many flock to Godless solutions for how life continues. Because the evidence for evolution, if a person really seeking truth, wouldn't seek evolution because it just makes no sense when a person actually takes long look at it. It has flunked every scientific test that would make it reasonable.

[Bust Nak]

So what you are saying is that the poster that said, "We have seen complexity arise from simplicity using a mindless process without any intelligent interference." should not have said that.there are

No, I am saying, you should accept that we have indeed seen complexity arise from simplicity using a mindless process without any intelligent interference, even with all the gaps in between fish and man.

But evolution is not even showing the above....

And what would you say to a guy who insist along the lines of "but aging is not even showing the above. No, it's like they are showing me a child in one pic and showing a kid in the next and saying, that's the same person. Certainly you can see why I'm skeptical. There is no pics of someone in the mid of aging. There is nothing on earth that is a 3rd, half, a 4th or even 99.9% of an aging person. It's all complete person."

[Rufus21]

Is this the natural place to find bacteria in nature?

Yes. Bacteria lives everywhere. I don't understand what that has to do with anything. In fact if we put bacteria in an unnatural habitat it will evolve even more. There is really no point in asking that question.

Just because they moved them to a dish doesn't mean what they observed has never happened before.

I agree. Bacteria has been evolving for billions of years. You said that you wanted pictures, so I gave them to you.

There is nothing supporting evolution here.

??????

There is photographic proof of life forms changing over time. Their DNA is mutating and natural selection is culling the offspring. Again, this is the very definition of evolution and you are watching it happen with you own eyes. This is the proof that you asked for.

Its like the ants and their wings. The DNA code for wings was already there but the switch to 'turn on' the cells that produce wings.

Actually it's the other way around. Ants evolved from wasps so the females lost their wings while the males kept them.

As far as I know, humans have no switch in their DNA for a 3rd arm. Most mutations of that type are not part of the evolutionary theory.

You don't think humans can be born with 3 arms? You need to spend some time on Google before you write these responses.

A human born with 3 arms is a perfect example of a genetic mutation. Do you disagree? Just like the ants. Every example you have given is proof of evolution, you just haven't thought about it.

[2timothy316]

So what you are saying is that the poster that said, "We have seen complexity arise from simplicity using a mindless process without any intelligent interference." should not have said that.there are

No, I am saying, you should accept that we have indeed seen complexity arise from simplicity using a mindless process without any intelligent interference, even with all the gaps in between fish and man.

Why can't I ask for more direct evidence? Should I not ask because 'it's too much of a challenge'? If this is what you mean, why should I accept what you say? Just because you said so? Aren't you acting exactly like religious leader saying, 'believe me' and when you ask for proof and get an answer, and I quote you, "Because it is unreasonable to not accept empirical evidence we do have for [God] while demand more." (Brackets mine) Do you see the problem? If roles were reversed wouldn't you ask for something more definite? Why must I jump to such a crazy conclusion? A bacteria gets an extra flagella...that is all I get? Countless animals have lived and died on this planet. The earth should be littered with definite proof of evolution. Where is it?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 107 by Rufus21]

I think you need to reread my posts again. You're cutting my posts up and not addressing my questions.

Did you not read the quote for Berkeley?

Not all mutations matter to evolution
Since all cells in our body contain DNA, there are lots of places for mutations to occur; however, not all mutations matter for evolution. Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won't be passed onto offspring.

That 3rd arm you keep talking about doesn't mean its part of evolution. Or do you not agree with with the folks at Berkeley?

How about this article about damage to DNA and it's causes.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpa ... ng-dna-344

Not every mutation is part of evolution. Don't you agree?

[Rufus21]

[Replying to post 107 by Rufus21]

I think you need to reread my posts again. You're cutting my posts up and not addressing my questions.

I've read your posts several times and I can't make sense of them.

I think we are talking about two very different things. What exactly do you think the "evolution theory" is and where did you learn that?