Why do so many people doubt evolution?

It is not my experience that people flock to religion for answers that can or could be given by science. When we flock to religion, we do it for the answers that cannot be handled by 'the cold logic of science'.

This also means that people "choose" religion first, which then compels them to reject anything that is in conflict with it (be it scientific explanations, political standpoints or moral values, doesn't matter).

 

Science says "we don't know" and pursues the answers. If finding those answers they have discovered the concept of evolution is indeed correct.

This is excruciatingly obvious.

 

It's not an excuse, it's an observation.

 

in their turn for more highly advanced beings evolution is indicative of more highly advanced beings than they are. Are you planning to keep on going with your proof of existence of an infinite advanced being(s) aka God?

 

Nobody doubts evolution. Like in any other scientific theory there is nothing to doubt in evolution. Like The flying Spaghetty Monster or the Pink Elephant evolution has not been observed or recorded by anybody. Enjoy your intuitive arguments about ways the FSM flyies. Enjoy the pictures of your imagination. I enjoy my lack of science education and I disscuss things given to me in senses and records of other's senses. Can people like me be just left to our own devices by scientists, professors and intellectuals?

 

This is a good illustration of the overall hora to the thread; what happens with those who are intentionally illiterate to science attempt to debate it?

 

great point

but as we all know theological definitions evolve then likewise know that the scientific descriptions evolve

seems many theological adherants are far colder than scientific adherants

where the divide is found most often is in honesty. ie... god(s) dont talk to people and everyone of us know that but some will lie just to retain their beliefs. That causes a huge issue and what is funny, is the commands themselves render, 'thou shalt not false witness' and when a religious adherant continues to mislead, then the debates get heated.

i am well aware of that part.

exactly.

the reason many will become 'militant' in defending their belief is that when observing areas of science, then realize that it often contradicts what is held as believed.

I find that in most theology, there are many metaphors that actually render what has been now comprehended in science.

For example; adam giving up a rib to make an eve. That metaphor is perfectly understood in the sciences. Cell division shares that a 'first' of life must give up a portion of itself to live into the next generations.

another: 'virgin birth' .... which is found within many frames of theology and that one too exists in science and of today, understood. i find that the old claim is based on a prophecy that when the absolute of truth is upon the earth, that is when to know the 'days' are near. Test tube babies are in fact a method of women concieving without a man touching them. A women could actually be a virgin and have a child.

where i find myself is in realizing that 'all' of consciousness literally now or at some time in their lives want to comprehend 'what is real' no matter the belief. And the comprehension of observing that focal quest is evidenced

 

True. Nobody plays chess with scientists. They are proven cheaters. Nobody plays cards with those who deal 16 Aces to themselves. Thanks for the proof of my observation. There is nothing to doubt in evolution.

 

Pssst, don't tell anyone but it's kind of the idea with His honourable Noodliness The Flying Spaghetti Monster that He has not been observed or recorded in any way pertaining to the natural world.

Strangely enough, alot of people enjoy their lack of science education as long as they get to call it a science education.

 

On other planets yes. That is probably true. Kinda fun isn't it.

 

but he did this miracle of evolution, results of which we observe and it is evidence of His Majesty existance and His honourable Noodliness watching us and decidng if to mutatte us back to a chimp or to advance us to the highest level of bacteria.

I get the idea and at the same time i don't, can i be called a scientist from now on?

 

You reason for doubting evolution, or at least the way of doubting evolution you are discussing is indicative of a misunderstanding of what science is about. Science concerns evidence, and evidence is not always directly seeing something. Here is some info for you to combat creationist misinformation.

Think of evolution as the evidence a detective finds at a crime scene. Lets say you were related to the murdered person and would have benefited financially from his death. The detective find your fingerprints and DNA all over the victim and the murder weapon. Your family said that you went out at the time of the crime. Your aunt found blood on some of the clothes you were trying to get washed to hide the evidence. They may not have directly seen what happened, but the evidence is strong that you did it.


We know that evolution happens through natural selection, mutations, and genetic drift, and have seen good mutations happen. We have tree ring, ice ring, and multiple radiomatric dating methods showing that the earth is old. In fact it is 4.5 billion years old. We have seen evolution happen from species that go through radical microevolution, evolution of bacteria with new abilities, evolution of new species that cannot interbreed. We find recent fossils that look very much like modern species, like the giant sloth and giant armadillo. Seeing evolution happening today, the cause is probably evolution. Keep going back into the fossil record, we find this gradual trail of evolution that leads back to a common ancestor.

We know that animals gain new functions by often copying genes with old functions and revising the copy a little to suit the new function. The copy may not do its job well at first, but it gets more and more efficient (e.g. bacteria that evolved the ability to digest nylon). We know that the ancient organisms that evolved new functions did not desperately need them at the time, they just improved things, we have just become reliant on them today. We have a good idea of how the eye evolved to do a little bit, and do more and more.

We have found an intermediate structures with fewer parts for the flagellum, and the blood clotting system. We know that flight evolved by find animals evolving skin under their arms to keep them from falling too fast, this evolved into their ability to glide, and this evolved in their ability to fly, better and better and better. We find evidence of this in the fossil record.

We may not have seen much macro-evolution (although we have observed some), but the evidence for evolution is strong from the fossil evidence for human evolution, reptile to mammal evolution, bird evolution, whale evolution, horse evolution, water to land animal evolution. Genetically all life is arranged in a hierarchical family tree, even in obscure low-level traits (cytochrome c gene). We find this same family tree in the fossil record.

We have seen genetic correlations and wasteful genes that hint at evolution, like humans having one chromosome that is a fused version of two ape chromosomes, and humans having a pseudo-gene of a haemoglobin gene right beside functioning haemoglobin genes. Other animals have a haemoglobin counterpart gene that actually works. The human haemoglobin pseudo-gene does not work because of a few mutations in it. The chimpanzee has the same haemoglobin gene that is a pseudo-gene, with the exact same mutations.

We find vestigital organs in creatures that hint at their past, e.g. whales with hips, snakes with leg bones, flightless birds with wings, sightless animals with eyes, or just eye sockets. We find vestigital atavistic abberations that get expressed in some organisms because old DNA that was turned off millions of years ago was turned on again, like whales with atavistic leg bones attached to their vestigial pelvis, or birds with teeth, or humans with tails. We sometimes see ancient traits expressed in the developmental process like human embryos with tails, and dolphin embryos with leg bugs.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and also a fact.

 

plain english. One more time. I DO NOT doubt evolution. THEre is nothing to doubt there.

there is no observation or record of evolution.

i am not playing logic. I had recieved a very vigorous training in logic. I do not want to disappoint you or make you doubt or argue your faith.

There is no observation or record of evolution hapenning. There is nothing to disscuss or doubt.

There is your imagination and logic i am totally fine with it - whatever. why is it so neccessary for you to convert everyone and bring to submission? just enjoy your fantasies.

 

You seem like an evolutionist, but your posts are confusing. We do have observations and record of evolution happening. It is all in my last post.

 

What an absurd assertion. Evolution has been directly observed in both the laboratory and the field. You appear to be equivocating, as is standard creationist practice.

It may feel good, but it does not constitute an argument.

 

Yes, there is. We have directly witness evolution both in the lab and in nature. I'll give you one - very good - example. For others, you'll have to do your own homework (though I know you won't)...

Nylonase

No, because you are a danger to the rest of us by spreading your ignorance and misinformation.

 

I am not an evolutionist. It is very simple - one observation/record will change my view.
i am sorry, there is none.

 

However it is true to reality, should an argument be based on reality or whim?

 

Nylone unfortunately includes chemicals (acids) which are important for sustaining life. (that is not clicking on your link) if you wish you can do some research decoding what words in your own link mean. It is easy.

 

logic and arguments do not matter. evolution either has been observed/recorded or it has not. So simple.

 

..... and I bet you would utilize the newest antibiotics for TB as well?

Or wait, evolution doesn't occur and hasn't been observed.

Yet, microorganisms are resistant to antibiotics.

Oh snap.

 

You make claims that are opinions not fact.

 

I receive justifications not answers

 

If we do not know than evolution should not be taught in schools since you claim there is no proof or facts

 

No it is a justification to avoid my questions