Re: Why I Don’t Accept Evolution.

Someone did a blog and I responded, blah blah blah.  You know the drill.

First of all I’d like to say that this blog gets more and more childish and dismissive and less substantive the more it goes on, so if I get a bit aggravated while responding that’s why.. 

“The reason I’m writing this is because a small number of people seem to believe that people who don’t accept evolution are not educated or somehow less intelligent.”

I don’t think someone has to be stupid to reject evolution, but I’ve never met someone who rejected it and could accurately explain how it works and knew about the evidence for it.  They invariably in my experience don’t understand the basic mechanisms or have been grossly misinformed by religious sources.  You fit both descriptions by the way, I will elaborate below.

“Maybe this is just on the internet, I don’t know. Honestly, I really think a very small percentage of people even really care or care to comment on the subject, so the vocal minority feels a little better about themselves in an anonymous forum.”

I am not saying you are ignorant of basic science to be mean, I’m saying you lack information because you do.

“Furthermore, some people overseas feel that Americans (all inclusive of course) are less intelligent and therefore refuse to accept what they believe are obvious “truths.” Unfortunately, that idea itself is completely intolerant and backwards in itself.”

American education is objectively worse than most of the industrialized world, at least up to the high school level.  Our colleges are actually pretty good.  But most people don’t learn about evolution in college unless they are studying biology specifically.

“For me, the simplest answer is that it’s really hard to believe that trees and people and fish and birds evolved from a common source.”

I could see how it would be hard to accept without an understanding of taxonomy, natural selection, and an explanation of how various organs and anatomical structures (eyes, hearts, lungs etc) evolved.  But the information is out there.  I get more convinced of common ancestry the more I look into it.  Religious advocates who see evolution and the bible or koran as being mutually exclusive have a pretty strong incentive not to look into the evidence.  Because they can just say “isn’t that silly!” and move on.  Creationism is justified by the ignorance of the believer (not understanding things is seen as proof of religious claims), science is justified by knowledge, tests, and evidence which often takes years to gather and understand.

“You can point out as many divisions as you want, but unless I see at least one human being photosynthesizing I refuse to accept it.  But that’s only the beginning of my issues with evolution.”

Here’s the first example of ignorance.  All humans produce vitamin D through photosynthesis.  But the process is not related to the way plants produce nutrients and why should it be?  This is like saying evolution is false unless a cat lays an egg.  Why should it do that?  There is no taxonomical reason they should share that particular trait in common, nor should we share that particular trait in common with plants, since we’ve been eating food for sustenance for hundreds of millions of years.  We do however share many traits in common with plants on a cellular and genetic level, such as sharing 25-50% of our DNA with them and having similar structures like cells with nuclei etc, (as opposed to bacteria which don’t have those structures).

“The worst part about evolution is that no one is able to point out when it began.”

No one can point out when the first word was spoken in the first language, but the fact that we don’t have that information doesn’t disprove all the information we do have about languages, how they’ve changed over time, etc.  So what is your point?

“And no one can point it out because of course fossils are hard to come by and the first living thing would have to be really small.”

More that fossils only formed once organisms had cell structures or anatomical structures strong enough to survive fossilization, similar to how languages were only recorded once they were written down and went unrecorded before that.  You’re pointing out something which logically should be the case if life evolved as if it somehow disproves the theory.

“But we can still assume that at some point a living thing had to evolve from a non living thing.”

All living things are made of “non-living” things.  The atoms in your body aren’t “alive”, they’re the same atoms that are in any inanimate object.  Life is just a functional arrangement of non-living matter, and the first life would’ve just been a self-replicating chemical pattern.

“So why dodge the question? If evolution is true then what was the first creature to evolve?”

Who is dodging the question?  The answer is “we don’t know exactly”.  Or if you prefer, “sometime between 3.5 and 4.54 billion years ago.  Possibly lipids at the bottom of the ocean, link.

“But evolutionists say that the point of evolution is not to explain how life began (major cop out).”

That’s not a cop-out, evolution explains very specific phenomenon and is logically independent of abiogenesis.  The two ideas are based on entirely different avenues of evidence.  Life evolved and is evolving whether it was created, occurred by abiogenesis, or flew out of vishnu’s rear end.  The two theories are independent and attacking abiogenesis and pretending it disproves evolution is dishonest or ignorant.  It’s like attacking the big bang theory and claiming this debunks someone’s theory of what caused the US civil war.  Just because one logically would’ve come before the other doesn’t mean they have anything to do with each other.  They are two ideas of different scopes that deal with different types of evidence.

“So I don’t have to accept it as true because Biogenesis says that all life comes from life. So the start of life was a living breathing thing.”

That’s not how laws work, laws (or principles) of science are just things that have never yet been observed to be untrue.  They are true only in principle and are by no means immutable.  “Laws” of science have been “broken” many times.  Newton’s “laws” of motion for instance break down on the quantum and cosmological scales, and when dealing with very fast moving objects.  Just because we haven’t observed something yet doesn’t mean we never will, nor does never observing something again mean it didn’t happen.  It just means it’s speculative, and abiogenesis is speculative.

“Spontaneous Generation (abiogenesis is the new term for it) was disproven a long time ago, so unless they come up with something better, I’m under no obligation to assume that evolution ever happened at all.”

Spontaneous generation is the idea that flies are spontaneously generated from rotting meat and rats from bales of hay.  Stop repeating cheap lies.

“Furthermore, I really don’t care what scientists say about anything.”

Your narrow mind rears it’s head at last.

“My concern is with making it to heaven and that’s it.  When scientists start to assume that God did not create the world, or that God isn’t real, then I may start to care what they think. But evolution is not really a concern of mine as it doesn’t affect me in any way.”

Scientists don’t assume god created the world or didn’t create the world (at least not in their role as scientists).  They deal strictly in things that they can test for accuracy, and the idea that life was created can’t be tested as it has no parameters.  It is too vague for anyone to tell whether it’s true or false.  It’s like predicting that “something” will happen tomorrow.  If something happens tomorrow does that suggest that I can look into the future?  No, because it’s not specific enough to be wrong.  And neither are vague religous claims like “life/the universe was created”.

“Will I teach my kids that evolution is right? Absolutely not. That’s not the truth. The Bible is the truth and it has been for thousands of years. It’s verifiable. Evolution is not.”

The king james bible refers to unicorns nine times and originally included books like “Bel And The Dragon”, which yes, is about a literal dragon.  Stories in the bible refer to enchanted trees, talking animals etc.  If that is verifiable truth then so are zeus, thor and the easter bunny.

“A few more reasons why I don’t accept the theory of evolution:

1. The theory keeps changing. At one point humans evolved from monkeys and then chimps and then lemurs and now some kind of sea worm. So who knows what it will change into next?”

Again, misinformation.  The theory of evolution has been updated to include new information in fields like genetics that weren’t as advanced in darwin’s day, but the theory never suggested that we descended from chimps or any other modern primates.  It makes no more sense to say we’re descended from modern animals than it does to say that americans are descended from modern day europeans.  We are cousins to one another, not ancestors and descendants.  Really, really basic misunderstanding of the concept.  As far as being descended originally from non-primate creatures, that is not a change in the theory – that is like saying “I don’t accept family trees because they keep changing – you just said I’m descended from my dad and now you tell me I’m descended from my great great grandfather, which is it?!”  The two are obviously not mutually exclusive.  Again, a very basic misunderstanding of the concept.

“Although I do applaud the search, the answers haven’t been found. But the Bible gives a clear answer and that hasn’t been disproven, so I’ll stick with that.”

It’s clear and hasn’t been disproven only because it’s too vague to be testable.  That an invisible genie created the universe is simple and impossible to disprove.  That doesn’t mean we should believe it or that it’s remotely likely to be true.  Lots of BS claims are non-falsifiable.  This is why in science everything is required to be falsifiable or it’s not considered science.

“2. Evolution doesn’t account for sexual reproduction. Their excuse is inadequate. Sorry. I’m not convinced. The first sexual creature to evolve had to have a mate. It’s common sense.”

No, it’s not.  Lots of species reproduce asexually and lots of asexual organisms swap DNA by different mechanisms.  There are many plausible explanations for how and why sexual reproduction could’ve evolved.  I’m not going to bother going into more detail here because you don’t, so why should I?  And again, your “proof” is your own ignorance.  The less you understand the world the more (in your mind) this “proves” god.  This is probably why belief in god declines with higher levels of education.

“3. Fossil record is too bare. Yep. Not enough fossils. We should be buried in fossils after billions of years of evolution. Stop giving excuses”

Fossilization is rare and only occurs under specific sets of circumstances, if it weren’t then we’d be wading through skeletons every time we walked through the woods after just after a few hundred years, let alone thousands.  However there are tons of fossils, and thousands of intermediate fossils.  Tell me, what specific number of fossils would prove evolution and why? 

“4. Flight. Flying. Mammals flying. Birds flying. Evolution has no good explanation or proof that it could happen.”

Again, an argument based on ignorance.  Flight can be explained through intermediates by the simple observation that wings in nature serve many purposes, not just flight (as evidenced by the myriad of flightless bird species).  They can be used as camouflage (the way ducks use them to cover their beaks when they sleep), they can be used as insulation, or to keep an animal’s offspring warm, or as fins or to scare off prey or any of a hundred other things.  Wings that let an animal run away faster are useful, ones that let it get off the ground a little are more useful, ones that let it get off the ground even longer are even more useful and so on.  The first airplane didn’t exactly stay in the air for ten hours.  If we can build planes through gradual modifications of crude structures why couldn’t natural selection build wings the same way?

“5. Whales. Yep. Whales. The current idea is that a tiny rat evolved into a giant sea dwelling creature.”

I’ve not heard the claim that whales evolved from rats, and they certainly didn’t evolve from modern rodents.  However we have 7 or 8 intermediate fossils, not to mention many whales still have vestigial hip and leg bones.

“For one, how did the mammal learn to swim?”

Questions like this make me think you’re being disingenuous or just not asking your own question to yourself before hurling it as an accusation.  LOTS of mammals can swim.

“Secondly, why did it suddenly decide to go into the water?”

Again, you sound as though you don’t understand the basics of natural selection.  Species don’t evolve because they “decide” to, and lots of mammals that spend most of their time on land hunt in the water, like bears that eat fish and countless other species.  My dog could swim by instinct, didn’t even have to learn.  Natural selection could’ve favored the ones that preferred the ocean more than land for any number of reasons – maybe there was more food in the ocean than there was on land.  It’s no more far fetched that natural selection could modify the behavior of whales than it is that artificial selection could modify pitbulls and dobermans to be more aggressive or sheep dogs to be more attentive to audio commands etc.

“Finally, how many evolved into whales in the first place? They had to reproduce. Once you think about it, it’s a pretty silly idea.”

Again, ignorance.  Evolution happens to species, not individuals.  An animal doesn’t evolve, the entire gene pool of it’s species does over many generations.  You say you accept natural selection but you don’t even know how it works.

“But that’s it. As far as natural selection goes, I think that part as fact (verifiable), but as far as evolution on a major scale goes (i.e. bacteria to bats to birds to dinos to whatever to man) I need a lot more evidence and less storytelling.”

Again, ignorance.  Bacteria (prokaryotes) and multi-cellular creatures (eukaryotes) are entirely separate lineages.  Neither we, nor plants, nor animals or insects evolved from bacteria.

But yeah, you don’t want any evidence.  You’ll probably be pissed at me for even trying to explain this stuff.  If you wanted evidence you’d go out and find it (it’s all out there).  Instead you go to anti-science religious websites and media to be told by people with no scientific background or expertise a bunch of ignorant BS.


About agnophilo

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Re: Why I Don’t Accept Evolution.

  1. @agnophilo – As you want it.  But I don’t think you can ignore.  It’s not in your nature.

  2. agnophilo says:

    @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – No, it’s not.  Which is why I’m not doing that.  I’m not ignoring you, you’re ignoring my responses and repeating yourself as though I said nothing.

  3. @agnophilo – Perhaps next time I will be more precise.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s