Why do people not believe in evolution in 2020?

[sawoobley]

Tested all the time in biological research.
Evolution makes all kinds of predications that are confirmed routinely..

To name a few ways,

-In the big picture, it predicts a general trend if simpler organisms in the fossil record during earlier epochs, with a gradual shift towards more complex organisms making appearances later in the fossil record (more recent history). This has been overwhelmingly observed.

-It predicts transitional forms in the fossil record, be it from reptiles to birds, fish to amphibians, or land mammals to whales, and not just transitional forms existing, but ones to be found in relatively narrow historical intervals....amazingly this prediction has been met with remarkable success given the rarity of fossilization.

-It predicts vestiges from vistigial eyes to wings in flightless birds, to hind-limbs and pelvic bones in whales, to the appendix in humans. There are countless examples of this.

-It predicts specific trends in geographical diversity of life, from adaptive radiation to the types of organisms native to, say oceanic islands (usually plant, bird, and insect species, and not land mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and freshwater fish....hmm wonder why, the latter have a very hard time bridging the ocean)

-It predicts the presence of pseudogenes, which have been confirmed over and over in various species (a famous one, non-functional gulonolactone oxidase pseudogene in humans makes it impossible to synthesize ascorbic acid, or vitamin C, from glucose).

-It predicts examples of bad design in species, in the sense we find examples, from say anatomy, that have no explanation under a “designer”. But it makes perfect sense under evolution in the sense that species evolve from earlier species- they build off pre-existing templates.

-It predicts we might be able to trace the history of animal evolution in the course of one pregnancy from embryo to fetus to birth...and indeed we do see this.

-It predicts precise relationships in the genomes among related species...which we see all over the place from actual DNA sequenced in the lab.

Could go on, but the point is clear. Evolution is associated with all sorts of accurate predictions.

Again this thread is not meant to be a debate about evolution....no one is debating whether this occurred in scientific circles. It is a question of why people don’t seem to want to consider the evidence for whatever reason. It’s not even meant to be a science-vs-religion thread regarding the fact of evolution. Religion, however, is related to the OP in that there definitely seems to be a correlation between religious belief and belief in special creation. Even in this very thread, you see posters who typically seem pro-religious being critical of it all, probably with little background in any of it....if anything supporting the idea that religion is a prominent factor here.

Of course it predicts those things when the scientists developed the theory based on their observations of the natural world and modern scientists continue to work within the framework adjusting as they go. All that means is it is a well thought out theory based on real data. It does not, however, mean the theory as we understand it today will not seem infantile to those living 100+ years from now.

[numberguy12]

Of course it predicts those things when the scientists developed the theory based on their observations of the natural world and modern scientists continue to work within the framework adjusting as they go. All that means is it is a well thought out theory based on real data. It does not, however, mean the theory as we understand it today will not seem infantile to those living 100+ years from now.

I was responding to someone wondering how it might be tested. One way is by testing it against fossils around us or against genomes in different species... real things in our world that are observable. The whole point of being testable....it makes some rather specific predictions that are confirmed by repeated observation.

You seem to be confusing the more theoretical nuances of evolutionary theory, differing factors that contribute to speciation, its rate over time, etc.....with the fact evolution has occurred on earth and explains the diversity of life around us. The latter is about as evidenced to the same extent the earth is not flat is evidenced...Id wager in 100 years no one would find this latter “theory” to be infantile. Of course, as with everything in science...the opportunity for falsification nevertheless is always there...I just don’t expect evidence to roll in that life hasn’t evolved on earth, in the same way I don’t expect evidence to roll in that the earth is actually a flat square.

[Tears]

I was responding to someone wondering how it might be tested. One way is by testing it against fossils around us or against genomes in different species... real things in our world that are observable. The whole point of being testable....it makes some rather specific predictions that are confirmed by repeated observation.

You seem to be confusing the more theoretical nuances of evolutionary theory, differing factors that contribute to speciation, its rate over time, etc.....with the fact evolution has occurred on earth and explains the diversity of life around us. The latter is about as evidenced to the same extent the earth is not flat is evidenced...Id wager in 100 years no one would find this latter “theory” to be infantile. Of course, as with everything in science...the opportunity for falsification nevertheless is always there...I just don’t expect evidence to roll in that life hasn’t evolved on earth, in the same way I don’t expect evidence to roll in that the earth is actually a flat square.

It's cute how people like you turn their nose up anytime religion is mentioned, simply because you think you can "disprosve" god. The only problem is you always fail at proving non existence.

[numberguy12]

It's cute how people like you turn their nose up anytime religion is mentioned, simply because you think you can "disprosve" god. The only problem is you always fail at proving non existence.

Why is this even a response in this thread?

Maybe try a different thread, if you want to go on about God and existence?

[navid93]

1. Do you believe that when animals have offsprings, the offspring gets a combination of their parents genetics?

2. Do you believe that sometimes there are random mutations? Like being born with an extra leg, no fur, or an eye missing?

3. Do you believe that once an offering has these mutations, they are more likely to pass those genes down to their own offsprings since it’s part of their dna?

4. There are now more members of that species with the initial mutations. Do you believe that some mutations will help you survive, meaning the initial species will die out but the mutants are more likely to survive and continue to pass on their genes?

5. This process can happen over and over again. That mutant has more mutant offsprings, which have more mutant offsprings, which have more mutant offsprings. Eventually, the new mutant offsprings have such different genetics from their ancestor in point 1, different muscles, brain, eyes, hair, that it would be considered by us a new species

That’s all evolution is

[Bodhy]

Why is this even a response in this thread?

Maybe try a different thread, if you want to go on about God and existence?

He has a point and it is similar to the one I made earlier, and that is that you are retrofitting the science of evolution to this child-like "Religion bad, science good" narrative you like to peddle in. Whilst evolution is of course a most robust and well-attested theory it is not the one-dimensional anti-theistic animus you seem to be selling it as.

[Tears]

He has a point and it is similar to the one I made earlier, and that is that you are retrofitting the science of evolution to this child-like "Religion bad, science good" narrative you like to peddle in. Whilst evolution is of course a most robust and well-attested theory it is not the one-dimensional anti-theistic animus you seem to be selling it as.

Exactly this.

[4Mum69]

[LuckyAH]

Here's a quick 4 minute video on evolution passing yet another test:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...xoAJ36ASRA40yy

The only people who disagree with evolution disageee with it because it contradicts their worldview. They don't actually understand the science, nor do they ever have a problem with other scientific theories (because they agree with their world view). It's intellectually dishonest.

[Tears]

Why is this even a response in this thread?

Maybe try a different thread, if you want to go on about God and existence?

Are you still trying to figure out if I was joking, or are you trying to calculate if Bodhy was correct?

[numberguy12]

He has a point and it is similar to the one I made earlier, and that is that you are retrofitting the science of evolution to this child-like "Religion bad, science good" narrative you like to peddle in. Whilst evolution is of course a most robust and well-attested theory it is not the one-dimensional anti-theistic animus you seem to be selling it as.

Hmmm....it seems like whatever your position is [not that I care that much tbh],religion is in fact playing a role [among others...I listed some guesses above] in peoples’ unwillingness to agree with basic science and look into the evidence in the case of evolution [this is really the only relevance of religion to the OP topic]. For people who are skeptical for some reason of this correlation, there have been various polls done on this topic.

No one is saying people can’t be religious and accept evolution as fact....ideas like theistic evolution, whatever that even is, is an example of a way believers adapt their views to the findings of science [note the order...science discovers facts, religious views adapt to it, not the other way around]. If they want to have beliefs like this...ok...that’s on them.

I would argue the evolution of life on earth is, however, in major conflict with a reading, as-is, of something like Genesis in the bible- not with accompanying gymnastics or anything of the sort- but as-is. And it seems like this is one contributing factor to that above mentioned trend of rejection of evolution in religious groups.

[Tears]

Hmmm....it seems like whatever your position is [not that I care that much tbh],religion is in fact playing a role [among others...I listed some guesses above] in peoples’ unwillingness to agree with basic science and look into the evidence in the case of evolution [this is really the only relevance of religion to the OP topic]. For people who are skeptical for some reason of this correlation, there have been various polls done on this topic.

No one is saying people can’t be religious and accept evolution as fact....ideas like theistic evolution, whatever that even is, is an example of a way believers adapt their views to the findings of science [note the order...science discovers facts, religious views adapt to it, not the other way around]. If they want to have beliefs like this...ok...that’s on them.

I would argue the evolution of life on earth is, however, in major conflict with a reading, as-is,

This is what ignorant parents look like.

[numberguy12]

Well let’s see...in this very thread, we have Blackjack arguing from consequences, Tears and others displaying a sort of distrust in science or “lab coat/technology paranoia” (^^^), some others critical on religious grounds......I suppose those guesses earlier weren’t entirely off the mark.

[Tears]

Well let’s see...in this very thread, we have Blackjack arguing from consequences, Tears and others displaying a sort of distrust in science or “lab coat/technology paranoia” (^^^), some others critical on religious grounds......guess those guesses earlier weren’t entirely off the mark.

It's amazing a mathematical genius still can't disprove god, but can very well argue against the mark of the beast.

[tyqb4]

it's not like there's a magical tipping point where everyone believes the best available explanation at the same time. in a few isolated places they were still worshipping the classical greek gods a few hundred years after everyone else had moved on. Christianity and monotheism in general learned from the decline of polytheistic cultures that you can't allow any room for competing ideas and spent centuries aggressively enforcing their beliefs. we've had evolution as an official "theory" since 1860 or something, it's probably gonna take another hundred years for that to really permeate through rural Alabama.

[LuckyAH]

It's amazing a mathematical genius still can't disprove god, but can very well argue against the mark of the beast.

Not all gods can be disproven, but it doesn't mean you should believe blindly. But just lol @ believing in an Abrahamic god.

[Tears]

Not all gods can be disproven, but it doesn't mean you should believe blindly. But just lol @ believing in an Abrahamic god.

Agreed.

[Tears]

Not all gods can be disproven, but it doesn't mean you should believe blindly. But just lol @ believing in an Abrahamic god.

What gods can be disproven?

[sandaltan]

god isnt real and theres no heaven or hell

disprove me

[kingmanaverage]

It's amazing a mathematical genius still can't disprove god, but can very well argue against the mark of the beast.

How you can you disprove something exists. That's like me asking you to prove bigfoot isn't real?

[NicaM]

There is actually lots of evidence of speciation and common ancestry...enough to fill books. But from your post I’m guessing the amount of effort you have spent looking into the subject is on the level of looking at Intelligent Design talking points, which have been addressed in detail.

There are enormous quantities of books that attempt to prove a great many things. And you actually didn't address anything I said. Talking points are talking points for a reason, so maybe don't jump to conclusions because they're what people go to first. Your response is, after all, something I've heard before a few times. I could just as easily refer you to the evidence that fills the books that argue against whatever books you're thinking of.

But looking over the thread, that's clearly not what you actually want to discuss. You're here to prove to yourself a dichotomy between religion and science. My response to that is simple - religion is what you believe about the origins and purpose of the universe, science is better understanding the universe through detailed observation. Neither you nor I am capable of going into science without religion coloring our conclusions.

[ClivesTriceps]

There are enormous quantities of books that attempt to prove a great many things. And you actually didn't address anything I said. Talking points are talking points for a reason, so maybe don't jump to conclusions because they're what people go to first. Your response is, after all, something I've heard before a few times. I could just as easily refer you to the evidence that fills the books that argue against whatever books you're thinking of.

But looking over the thread, that's clearly not what you actually want to discuss. You're here to prove to yourself a dichotomy between religion and science. My response to that is simple - religion is what you believe about the origins and purpose of the universe, science is better understanding the universe through detailed observation. Neither you nor I am capable of going into science without religion coloring our conclusions.

For someone that typed so many words, you said so little

[VinnyPazRules]

Are you serious? Look how dumb all these trump cultist cucks are? You're actually surprised they shun science?

[squanto]

Most of the evidence is lost in time and the evidence that is not lost is of organisms and processes that occurred a very long time ago. We cannot test things directly. We can only piece together what we find, we cannot challenge our assumptions like we can with processes of living organisms. Yes, we can map genomes and put things together as we think they should go but there are a lot of assumptions and the data doesn't fit as neatly as we are told.

There are non-coding parts of the genome that have a predictable mutation rate, it can be and is rigorously tested. The concept of one common ancestor is extremely easily tested and has been. There are methods of radiometric dating (Rb/Sr, K/Ar etc) that are often employed to date fossils. What evidence do you need to see and why?

[ClivesTriceps]

Are you serious? Look how dumb all these trump cultist cucks are? You're actually surprised they shun science?

Srs, it must really suck being you.

[isingmodel]

There are non-coding parts of the genome that have a predictable mutation rate, it can be and is rigorously tested. The concept of one common ancestor is extremely easily tested and has been. There are methods of radiometric dating (Rb/Sr, K/Ar etc) that are often employed to date fossils. What evidence do you need to see and why?

He needs to see it written in his 2000 year old book

[BlackJack619]

I believe in the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of pascal, ohm's law, Boyles's Law, and by believing in these I can build machines that can improve my life and the quality of life of others, theres purpose in believing in these laws because they are true and you can build from them. Theres a reason someone would want to believe and understand ohm's law.

What reason does someone have to believe in evolution? What has been built from observing the "truths" of evolution. How does believing in evolution improve anyone's life?

I can easily make the arguement how believing in the laws of thermodynamics has improved our quality of life, I can also make the argument how believing in ohm's law makes what we we are doing now possible. I can also argue how believing in religion serves a purpose, so why would someone believe in evolution if it serves no purpose?

[BlackJack619]

InB4 buT BElief dONt SErvE a PuRPose.

[navid93]

I believe in the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of pascal, ohm's law, Boyles's Law, and by believing in these I can build machines that can improve my life and the quality of life of others, theres purpose in believing in these laws because they are true and you can build from them. Theres a reason someone would want to believe and understand ohm's law.

What reason does someone have to believe in evolution? What has been built from observing the "truths" of evolution. How does believing in evolution improve anyone's life?

I can easily make the arguement how believing in the laws of thermodynamics has improved our quality of life, I can also make the argument how believing in ohm's law makes what we we are doing now possible. I can also argue how believing in religion serves a purpose, so why would someone believe in evolution if it serves no purpose?

You’re making this same argument over and over again. Truth doesn’t care about your feelings. You don’t choose to believe something only because it makes you feel good. How do you not see that that’s incredibly biased?

[BlackJack619]

You’re making this same argument over and over again. Truth doesn’t care about your feelings. You don’t choose to believe something only because it makes you feel good. How do you not see that that’s incredibly biased?

I have built a lot from believing in the laws of thermodynamics, ohm's law, and Pascals law ect.... theres a purpose in believing in those laws.
What purpose does believing in evolution serve?
OP wants to know why people dont believe in evolution and I am telling you because it serves no purpose, unlike beliving in ohm's law.