Why do people mistrust evolution?

[Daretothink]

This is a serious thread no trolling from me this time (i previously went under the name NO!shua), but a genuine conversation about science and acceptance of evolution. What about evolution is unacceptable? What are arguments against it that have legitimate scientific backing?

 

[Daretothink]

And this time mods, don't block me

 

[Daretothink]

please

 

[LadyGemini]

Well besides the inconsistancy, unreliablity, and darn right illogicality of evolution I don't know.

To say that if you breed a horse enough times it will eventually become a dog is (to be frank) really stupid. Besides that if you belive the Bible it certainly rules out any thought of evolution.

Romans 1:20-24 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (That last part of 23 sound really familiar to me)

2 Peter 3:3-6 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

1 Timothy 6:20 20O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

So really I think the only quest is will you choose "science" or the Bible make your choice and stick with it.

Also I'm in a hurry so I may come back later and do a fuller detail of this.

 

[aaronsurfs22]

Well besides the inconsistency, unreliability, and darn right illogicality of evolution I don't know.

To say that if you breed a horse enough times it will eventually become a dog is (to be frank) really stupid. Besides that if you belive the Bible it certainly rules out any thought of evolution. (spelling errors fixed)

I think you might be confusing the word evolution with the words shape-shift. I'm not trying to troll here, but your explanation of evolution is downright ignorant and offensive. If you would like to call a theory stupid and be taken seriously you should do a little research and actually learn about it first. Many people believe following the law a book that was written over a thousand years ago to be quite Illogical (To be frank as you would say), and it is unfair for you to just assume that anything which dissents from what you believe to be stupid. As it is my first post on these forums I don't know how you folks react to a disagreement such as this, but I would hope that it wouldn't be to delete my post or ban me. I'm just here to give my civil opinion on the matter without trying to get anyone too offended . Thanks for listening!

 

[Daretothink]

To say that if you breed a horse enough times it will eventually become a dog is (to be frank) really stupid. Besides that if you belive the Bible it certainly rules out any thought of evolution.

Also I'm in a hurry so I may come back later and do a fuller detail of this.

Yes that idea would be stupid but fortunately evolution does not work that way. Evolution is dependant on Random mutation of DNA and the Non-random natural selection that determines what lives and passes on their genes and what dies. The organisms that live pass on their genes to the next generation and that generations can have mutations too. Also I think you do not have a goo understanding of common descent. In your example of a horse and a dog, no of course a horse will not become a dog, they are not even in the same family. A dog and a horse share a common ancestor that was neither dog nor horse but something that has the characteristics of both however small in detail. The relation between a horse and a dog is a Y shape with their common ancestor at the single end and the horse and dog at the two points on the opposite end. You thinking of it in a straight line. To put it simply, Mutation + Natural Selection + Time + Environmental pressures and the need to adapt = Evolution

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

Well... if evolution is proved to be right, then the bible is wrong.
If the Bible would be wrong, then the whole christian belief would be wrong.

People don't mistrust it because they don't believe in it, they mistrust it
merely because they dont want to admit they are living a lie.

Let's say you're in an argument which you really don't want to lose because otherwise, you will look like a fool and everybody would think you are plain stupid. Even though you, deep in your heart, know that the other person is right, you still don't want to admit your mistake.

And yes, that was a metaphor.

 

[solarwave]

First I'll answer why young earth creationists have problem with evolution, and then I will give my own opinion.

Young earth creationists generally believe that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God meaning and that Genesis is literal history. They would argue then that evolution has a different order of creation than the Genesis story and because they hold tightly to their belief in God and inerrancy over science they choose young creation creationism. There is no scientific backing to this and there doesn't necessairly have to be. The problem with this view is not that it isn't scientific but that it assumes that the simplest answer is true and doesn't look to outside sources for help.

 

[solarwave]

To say that if you breed a horse enough times it will eventually become a dog is (to be frank) really stupid. Besides that if you belive the Bible it certainly rules out any thought of evolution.

Im sorry to have to be arguing against you again, its nothing personal, Im sure we agree on more essential things.

For me it makes sense that "Mutation + Natural Selection + Time + Environmental pressures and the need to adapt = Evolution". I only thing I have a problem is how major new things mutate. How totally new information is made. It could be be mutation, Im not expert on evolution lol.

Romans 1:20-24 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (That last part of 23 sound really familiar to me)

I don't see how this proves evolution is false. I agree that the world and all animals were created by God and are 'made'. You might say animals are not directly created by God in my view so it is different, but in your view the animals currently alive are also not directly created by God. And I dont think evolution says God is a four-footed animal.

2 Peter 3:3-6 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

You are saying here that nothing has changed since the start of creation? Therefore no evolution? If you take that verse to mean that what do you make of the fact that I am alive today and I wasn't in the beginning? Many things have changed. Even after the bit you underline Peter says things changed in the Flood.

1 Timothy 6:20 20O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

By the way what Bible type do you use? In the NIV it says: "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge". I don't think this goes specifically against evolution.

So really I think the only quest is will you choose "science" or the Bible make your choice and stick with it.

I choose both.

Christianity doesn't stand or fall on this issue, only whether Christ really rose from the dead or not.

 

[Zoness]

People mistrust evolution because they don't understand it, as clearly evidenced by some in this thread. For those that do understand evolution, they realize that it doesn't undermine the Christian faith unless you are reading the Bible 100% literally and if that is the case, good luck maintaining logical integrity to your belief system anyways.

 

[Mela Monkey]

Probably because the popular christian belief is that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I'm not so quick to believe that though, why? The bible says nothing of it. I don't think you can honestly add up the ages of everyone who lived in the bible, and from that, conclude the Earth is only 6,000 years old.. then go on and ignore what many scientists say about how the Earth is much older.

 

[LadyGemini]

I know everyone is going to say that I'm ignoriant or just don't understand how evolution works, but frankley I don't care. I go to a public school and have been taught this theory all my life. And I'm going to use an extreme example of one reason evolution doesn't work.

Ok lets say that I was born with an extra finger and that this is the next step of evoution (and for the record how do you know that it's not? I mean it could be the next step in evolution, but instead of letting people go out and find someone else with an extra finger or carrier gene and breed with them they instead chop off the finger and tell those people to go and find someone "normal". I mean how could you possible know what mutations are good and which aren't? Just extra food for thought) anyways I'm wanting to continue this evoltuionary step.

Well this is where natural selection should take place. Now I may or may not be a carrier for the extra finger gene (for this example we'll say I am), if I breed with someon that also carries the gene then there is a large chance that my child will have an extra finger or at leats carry the gene for it and then they breed with someone that has that same gene and so on and so on... evolution continues.

But the more that I and the rest of my family tree breed with people that don't have that gene the less chance it will ever come up again. And so if that were the next step of evoution then I just messed it up (along with everyone else in the world) and so therefore we all remain the same and everyone stays five fingered (well four fingers and one thumb).

Now I know that is a long and extreme example of one reason the evolution doesn't work, but maybe someone will think it over. And by think it over I mean think about things like the poison arrow frog, it's the only thing that isn't killed by it's own poison (as far as I know), which mean that it would have first had to have evolved an immunity to the poison before it ever got the poison and if the frog that carried the "cure gene" bred with a frog that didn't (which is more than likely the case since the chances of two frog with the cure gene evolving at the same time in the same place are astronomical and probably even beyound numbers) then guess what, no poison arrow frog I don't care how much time you have on your side it just doesn't work.

P.S. Sorry if there is a lot of spelling errors and so on, but I was in a hurry to write this .

 

[Daretothink]

I know everyone is going to say that I'm ignoriant or just don't understand how evolution works, but frankley I don't care.

"ignoriant" - irony

I go to a public school and have been taught this theory all my life. And I'm going to use an extreme example of one reason evolution doesn't work.

As a fellow public school student in the south, I have personally never had any in depth teaching of evolution every.

lets say that I was born with an extra finger and that this is the next step of evoution (and for the record how do you know that it's not? I mean it could be the next step in evolution, but instead of letting people go out and find someone else with an extra finger or carrier gene and breed with them they instead chop off the finger and tell those people to go and find someone "normal".

I have never chopped off a finger from a person who is polydactic. I probably never will. I know of no reason this piece of discourse on medical ethics is here on the discussion of acceptance of evolution as a fact, like it is.

mean how could you possible know what mutations are good and which aren't?

Bad Mutations kill you before having the ability to reproduce or make you unable to spread the mutated gene.

Good mutations aid in the ability to survive in the environment, a good mutation for fish would be the ability to inflate the swim bladder more effectively, hence giving it better means to evade predators and live long enough to breed their mutations.

Well this is where natural selection should take place. Now I may or may not be a carrier for the extra finger gene (for this example we'll say I am), if I breed with someon that also carries the gene then there is a large chance that my child will have an extra finger or at leats carry the gene for it and then they breed with someone that has that same gene and so on and so on... evolution continues.

A) How would Natural Selection deal with anything in this statement?

B) You are assuming that evolution happens to individuals not populations as the Theory of Evolution states.

But the more that I and the rest of my family tree breed with people that don't have that gene the less chance it will ever come up again.

Polydactylism is a bad example due to it being able to be caused by multiple gene mutations in multiple situations.

And so if that were the next step of evoution then I just messed it up (along with everyone else in the world) and so therefore we all remain the same and everyone stays five fingered (well four fingers and one thumb).

You are also thinking of this in human standards where something like having an extra finger is no big deal. But in nature where a minor change in anatomy means death by predator, starvation, environment, etc... If say surviving well required six fingers on each hand than I guarantee you polydactylism would be present more. And also why could not another population experience the same mutation yours did?

Now I know that is a long and extreme example of one reason the evolution doesn't work, but maybe someone will think it over. And by think it over I mean think about things like the poison arrow frog, it's the only thing that isn't killed by it's own poison (as far as I know)

Yep because of a poison dart frog couldn't handle its own biochemistry than it would die most likely before being able to reproduce.

which mean that it would have first had to have evolved an immunity to the poison before it ever got the poison

No, not at all MANY MANY MANY cases of evolution show that the animal population used the substance (in this case poison) in a different manner before its present use. For instance again, swim bladders in fish are evolved from a primitive lung used for gas exchange. Primitive "poison" for instance could have been first used to make the frogs taste badly to evade predators the more potent the secretion the less likely to be eaten, Natural Selection selects for potent poison.

You know, there will be people that will never accept science. The same science that discusses atom, cells, combustion, magnetism, etc. also discusses evolution.


One last note. If indeed evolution is false and God created all beings, than God is not adequate in the least. The eye, the digestive system, the circulatory system, the laryngeal nerve, the behaviorisms of animals, whales being mammals, bipedalism, all of it ridiculous if it is indeed designed by God.

 

[solarwave]

LadyGemini: I was also taught evolution in school, but even now I know I know very little about compared to what I could know.

Im not gunna try to explain your problem with evolution because I don't know enough to do that. But I would assume that top evolutionists must know of this most obvious problem. Sadly it seems alot of my replies to you are against you :S

Daretothink: How would you explain how this finger mutation would pass on to others in the population without being 'diluted' like LadyGemini says?

 

[SithDoughnut]

I know everyone is going to say that I'm ignoriant or just don't understand how evolution works, but frankley I don't care. I go to a public school and have been taught this theory all my life. And I'm going to use an extreme example of one reason evolution doesn't work.

OK.

Ok lets say that I was born with an extra finger and that this is the next step of evoution (and for the record how do you know that it's not? I mean it could be the next step in evolution, but instead of letting people go out and find someone else with an extra finger or carrier gene and breed with them they instead chop off the finger and tell those people to go and find someone "normal". I mean how could you possible know what mutations are good and which aren't? Just extra food for thought) anyways I'm wanting to continue this evoltuionary step.

OK. On a side note, I can't really think of any evolutionary advantages of having six fingers but then I can't predict the future either.

Well this is where natural selection should take place. Now I may or may not be a carrier for the extra finger gene (for this example we'll say I am), if I breed with someon that also carries the gene then there is a large chance that my child will have an extra finger or at leats carry the gene for it and then they breed with someone that has that same gene and so on and so on... evolution continues.

If you both carry the gene(s) in question then yes.

But the more that I and the rest of my family tree breed with people that don't have that gene the less chance it will ever come up again. And so if that were the next step of evoution then I just messed it up (along with everyone else in the world) and so therefore we all remain the same and everyone stays five fingered (well four fingers and one thumb).

This is where you stump me. I'll do an answer like this in points for ease of reading:

1) If we assume the gene is recessive, then yes, you wouldn't see the sixth finger very often if your genetic lineage breeds with people with a different, dominant version of the gene. However, that does not mean that the gene magically disappears, it just doesn't show. As a result, two people who have this recessive gene (and only 5 fingers), could give birth to a child with six fingers. This child will then pass the gene on and so on.

2) If the gene turns out to be dominant, then your gene will cause offspring from outside of the family to have a much higher change of being born with six fingers.

So, given these two points, can you explain you point any further? How exactly would this gene disappear?

Now I know that is a long and extreme example of one reason the evolution doesn't work, but maybe someone will think it over. And by think it over I mean think about things like the poison arrow frog, it's the only thing that isn't killed by it's own poison (as far as I know), which mean that it would have first had to have evolved an immunity to the poison before it ever got the poison

Unless the poison began as something entirely different. However, I can see what you're saying.

and if the frog that carried the "cure gene" bred with a frog that didn't (which is more than likely the case since the chances of two frog with the cure gene evolving at the same time in the same place are astronomical and probably even beyound numbers) then guess what, no poison arrow frog I don't care how much time you have on your side it just doesn't work.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. A new mutation is not magically overridden by every single alternative version - it can override the old versions too. Even if it was recessive, there is no reason why it will magically disappear.

I know you've said you've been taught evolution all your life, but you can't have been taught it in much detail yet. I wouldn't call that ignorance (well, technically it is, but the word has connotations that don't really apply here), more lack of education.

 

[Zoness]

Probably because the popular christian belief is that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I'm not so quick to believe that though, why? The bible says nothing of it. I don't think you can honestly add up the ages of everyone who lived in the bible, and from that, conclude the Earth is only 6,000 years old.. then go on and ignore what many scientists say about how the Earth is much older.

I would disagree. I would say most Christians accept Theistic Evolution, like myself. There is a minority of loud, conservative Christians that are staunch YECists.

 

[Zoness]

I know everyone is going to say that I'm ignoriant or just don't understand how evolution works, but frankley I don't care. I go to a public school and have been taught this theory all my life. And I'm going to use an extreme example of one reason evolution doesn't work.

Then I am probably wasting my time on this. Bold emphasis added.

Ok lets say that I was born with an extra finger and that this is the next step of evoution (and for the record how do you know that it's not? I mean it could be the next step in evolution, but instead of letting people go out and find someone else with an extra finger or carrier gene and breed with them they instead chop off the finger and tell those people to go and find someone "normal". I mean how could you possible know what mutations are good and which aren't? Just extra food for thought) anyways I'm wanting to continue this evoltuionary step.

This is a mutation, not a step in evolution. A step in evolution requires the altering of an entire population dynamic, this is a mutation occurring with a single individual. This also ignores principle medical ethics by implying that people would just "chop off" extra fingers. If this was an important piece of an evolutionary process, the genes would continue to occur throughout the population and not end with one fork in the tree, the Adam and Eve model doesn't work here.

Well this is where natural selection should take place. Now I may or may not be a carrier for the extra finger gene (for this example we'll say I am), if I breed with someon that also carries the gene then there is a large chance that my child will have an extra finger or at leats carry the gene for it and then they breed with someone that has that same gene and so on and so on... evolution continues.

Actually the chances are quite small since actual polydactylism requires multiple alleles with specific dominance to occur. Also, I fail to understand how this applies to natural selection at all.

But the more that I and the rest of my family tree breed with people that don't have that gene the less chance it will ever come up again. And so if that were the next step of evoution then I just messed it up (along with everyone else in the world) and so therefore we all remain the same and everyone stays five fingered (well four fingers and one thumb).

Coming back to population dynamics. You are misunderstanding the evolutionary concept of population. A species-changing mutation doesn't just start and magically replicate in a few generations. A series of environmental and adaptive factors including allele dominance are required to occur across an entire population over an exponential amount of time, meanwhile allowing for the species to continue reproducing.

Now I know that is a long and extreme example of one reason the evolution doesn't work, but maybe someone will think it over. And by think it over I mean think about things like the poison arrow frog, it's the only thing that isn't killed by it's own poison (as far as I know), which mean that it would have first had to have evolved an immunity to the poison before it ever got the poison and if the frog that carried the "cure gene" bred with a frog that didn't (which is more than likely the case since the chances of two frog with the cure gene evolving at the same time in the same place are astronomical and probably even beyound numbers) then guess what, no poison arrow frog I don't care how much time you have on your side it just doesn't work.

Or rather, the frog would not be able to reproduce if it couldn't survive its own makeup. Hence survival of the fittest.

 

[marie.c]

So, I support the theory of theistic evolution, but I've been reading some things by people who don't and I do think they ask some good questions, questions I would like answered. I have also noticed that ALL the questions they ask, even ones that seem worth explaining, are dismissed by scientists, apparently because they don't want to stoop so low as to answer the creationists. But I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and I need someone to give me answers to those questions instead of acting like they're stupid, so I really wish scientists who support evolutionary theory would at least answer the creationists sometimes.

Here are some questions I have about evolution that I have't heard answered yet:

1. Starting with something that's already been mentioned here -

If this was an important piece of an evolutionary process, the genes would continue to occur throughout the population

Why? Why would useful mutations occur? What would cause that to happen? This question, of course, only applies to atheistic evolution - theistic evolution assumes that evolution is guided or set up to work right by God anyway, so this isn't really an issue. But really - are gene mutations more likely to occur because they are "an important piece of the evolutionary process"? If not, then how do enough individuals in the population develop the same mutation for it to be a step in the evolutionary process?

2. Speciation - has or has this not ever been shown to occur? I saw this issue taken up in the Skeptic column in Scientific American once, but Michael Shermer basically made a joke out of it, acting like it was too ridiculous for a serious response, and ended it by saying that if you really needed speciation to have been documented, he would declare the Chihuahua to be it's own species. But that's not the point, it's just avoiding the question. The creationists claim that animals only reproduce "after their kind", and that evolution only happens as what they call "microevolution", but never "macroevolution". They say that things can evolve in different places, even to the point where they can't produce fertile offspring - for example, they say that zebras and modern horses evolved from a common ancestor (at least the people at Answers in Genesis do), but that they would never evolve to the point where to animals of common descent are genetically incapable of reproducing. I've never seen a scientist who supports evolution show an example of speciation, or explain why we don't have one. They just make jokes. But I don't see why it's such a ridiculous question, and couldn't they make jokes after they explain to the rest of us why its so silly? Sometimes I wonder if they don't have an answer.

3. Are evolutionary theories genuinely scientific? Take any feature, you can describe how it could have evolved. Why fingers have joints that only bend one way, for example. But you could also explain, if fingers had joints that bent in any direction, how they had evolved that way. In fact, for almost anything your looking at, you can come up with some story for how it evolved. For some people, this proves that evolution is, in biology, the theory of everything. The thing is, the theory is so open and allows for so many possibilities that it COULD explain everything. But imagine we figured out how something that didn't evolve, could have evolved. Would there ever be any way of proving it didn't evolve? If there isn't, then any given example of "this is now such-and-such evolved" is unfalsifiable. Which disqualifies it as a scientific theory. I've heard the argument that Darwin himself in his book the Origin of Species explained how evolution could be falsified: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." The issue I have with that is that if we found something that seemed irreducibly complex, most scientists would say we don't know yet how it had come into being, and maybe we'll find out as science progresses. Nothing will ever be truly declared irreducibly complex, because how do you demonstrate scientifically that something can't be broken down into smaller parts? You can say "at the moment, we don't see how it would be possible", but you can't demonstrate that that has to do with the irreducibility of the organ and not your own ignorance. In short, if they found something irreducibly complex, most scientists wouldn't say "Its irreducibly complex!", they would say "Its very interesting. We really don't understand yet how this could have evolved."

Don't get me wrong, I think evolution happened. And even if I didn't, the arguments offered by Creationists and ID supporters seem to be based mostly on arguing against evolution, which doesn't really show why their own theories are valid. But I would like these questions (and some others, but I don't want the post to be too long) answered...

 

[solarwave]

I can only answer number 1: I think helpful and unhelpful mutations are equally likely, but unhelpful ones die out but helpful ones continue to be passed on.

 

[Daretothink]

I'll try to answer your questions but remember the resources outside this forum are vast. I know Richard Dawkins isn't popular here but his book The Blind Watchmaker is really great for understanding evolution.

So let's begin.

1) Any mutation useful or unuseful is random. Gene mutation is the deletion, addition, or rearrangement of a segment of a DNA code so as to product a either somatic mutation (a mutation of the individual's gene) or a gametic mutation (which effects the sex cells of the individual). So ways in which mutations can happen is a misreading of the DNA code while preforming a function, radiation,etc... The ability of a gene to mutate is also different throughout a genome. The mutation for dwarfism is different than the mutation for extra limbs. This is why dwarfism is much more common. Also remember that mutation isn't the only thing effecting variety in a species. An event in sex cell production called genetic recombination mixes the chromosomes of the cells so that diversity is present. This is why siblings do not look exactly alike even though they share both parents' DNA.

2) Speciation HAS been shown to occur, several times. Dogs and Cabbages were Darwin's favorite examples. Dogs have all been shown to be related back to the wolf. Man has been artificially selecting them for centuries to fit the purpose they breed for. Hunting dogs were breed for hunting show dogs for looks. Wild cabbage too is also an example it has been speciated today into vegetables like cauliflower and Brussels Sprouts. Another example is of an ostrich and a Rea. A Rea is a South American Bird that resembles the ostrich in almost every way except it has become adapted for South America. The idea that they cannot interbreed anymore is why it is called speciation. Species are animal classes that are related but cannot breed together. Also look up Italian Wall Lizards they are definitely a product of speciation if not short-term evolution

3) YES entirely, evolution is accepted by 99% of the scientific community, it is even more accepted by scientists than the Holocaust is accepted by historians. To answer the second part about evolution and falsifiability. Everything is evolving constantly, Darwin said this in the final pages of Origin. Everything is always under environmental pressures. Not so much in humans because we have almost mastered our environment. Such pressures like natural selection and mutation are always happening and always causing evolution. To answer the question about irreducible complexity, I agree no scientist would say that, because science is all about discovering answers. I find things like ID dangerous because it gives an excuse for ignorance among the scientific community. Irreducible complexity isn't really a viable option because you have to say that we will never know about that organ or appendage in order to satisfy that requirement. Science isn't like that.