to wonder how people can not believe in Evolution .......

[cookielove]

After a discussion at work which actually started about a childs' dress (day nursery) leading onto the duggars and then religion, it came clear to me that several of my work colleagues do not believe in evolution and not only that but also dinosaurs not existing

Now i can understand the more religious people not believing as Evolution and adam and eve clash, but for those who were not religious how can you not believe in Evolution. Its proven.

I mean really how can people not believe in Evolution or dinosaurs.

I quote one of my work colleagues 'well there's lots of dinosaur toys so they must have been real' .... WTAF?

Please tell MN that you believe in Evolution, and dinosaurs ......

worzelswife, glad to hear of an athiest with an open mind!

Unfortunatly, HeteronormativeBuckethead's comments are more representative of the athiests I have spoken to, implying we should beleive in evolution because there is no other (non supernatural) explanation.

That is just not how science works, ideas and understandings change over time, a lot of scientific beleif in the past has been wrong, a lot of current scientific beleif currently is, look at quantum physics , a series of contracdictory and mutually excluding suggestions and ideas, but noone gets into polarised, entrenched positions like they do with evolution. Instead scientists approach it from the viewpoint that they are not sure which idea is right, but are digging further to find more evidence, which will lead in one direction or another, or possibly cast doubt on all current thinking, and start a new idea.

Why can't people appraoch the idea of evolution like that? I can go into more details if anyone wants me to , but other discusiion here about domestic animals,(makes me less inclined to accept macroevolution) music ( not sure) carbon etc dating etc ( definatly makes me less inclined to beleive in evolution) and DNA sequencing (makes me possibly more inclined to beleive that some macroevolution has occured, although some DNA sequencing actually seems to provide evidence against it) all adds interest to the debate, but very few people seem to hold a position of "well, maybe" which seems to me to be the position most scientifically valid.

For the record, I personally don't think that you are any less a christian if you beleive in evolution. I don't think it has any bearing on your Christian faith at all. I do feel however that people who come at evolution from the position that some or all of it might not be explainable with current scientific knowledge, are more open minded, and these people may be more likely to be people with a faith.

Wheredidyoulastseeit, agree totally with what you said - there are holes in both arguements!

To be only slightly pedantic, evolution does just means that things change over time (although not necessarily gradually). :o

Hackmum, it's the old thing about micro vs macroevolution.
And some people accept that other organisms evolve, but not humans. WT?

Re half man half animal, you only need to change I think 1.4% of human DNA to get a chimpanzee. Much less than half! We even share 60% of our DNA with a banana.

Mutation and natural selection still occurs among humans. For example Tibetans have a much higher instance of a mutation than the Han Chinese which helps them live at higher altitudes. These populations only split two and a half thousand years ago. Article here.

hackmum, the problem with using abacterial resistance to explain evolution is that nothing actually changes in beacterial populations, other than the shuffling and frequency of fully formed genes, so this isn't evolution as such, even microevolution. In otherwords, if selection pressure is reversed, the net affect of the shuffling would also happen in reverse. Same is true for species such as wheat, etc

Which evolutionary biologists do you think have an entrenched view, Asiatic? Can you link to some papers written by them which you think show this view?

Asiatic, the idea of evolution is not really debated because it is the only scientific explanation for observations.
What scientists actually working on evolution debate is how evolution occurred. What is the relative importance of different mechanisms, etc.

As far as I am aware, no DNA sequencing so far has provided any evidence against macroevolution. Care to explain?

And what do domestic animals have to do with macroevolution?

Lueji: "evolution does just means that things change over time (although not necessarily gradually)"

I know that. But it's the mechanism by which things change is what's important. Before Darwin, some people had the idea that species might evolve, but they didn't understand the mechanism. Once Darwin and Wallace came up with natural selection, it all became crystal clear. I just think that a lot of people still don't understand the natural selection element of it, which is why it's important to make clear that when we talk about "evolution" what we mean is "evolution by natural selection".

About mutations in humans:

The capacity to digest lactose as adults has arisen by mutation different times, independently, in human populations. And it was selected for (and thus expanded) in populations that had domesticated cattle.

In fact, resistance in bacteria does happen by mutation, in addition to recombination. The mutation rate can be measured.
Why do you think that changes in frequency of genes in a population is not evolution?

We don't mean evolution by natural selection though, do we? Not all biological evolution is a consequence solely of natural selection. I think biological evolution is about genetic change, frequency of alleles and so on.

Evolution is not a hypothesis - it's a theory.

Many people use "theory" when they mean "hypothesis." It's not just an idea, not a just a thought - the theory as it stands currently takes into account all of the scientifically valid evidence and produces the best fit explanation.

As PP said, I don't believe in evolution. I agree that the probability of the theory being correct is very high, and have seen no evidence to the contrary. That's not the same as belief, requires no leaps of faith and does not demand me to alter my life or perform mental gymnastics in any way.

Creationism requires one to make leaps of faith, live one's life according to the arbitrary rules of a deity for whom there is no verifiable evidence, and twist and turn evidence to fit the fully formed, wholly completed belief system that is already there. If you proved beyond doubt to a Creationist that evolution has happened and is happening - it wouldn't change their mind, because they have faith. In evolutionary biology, if new evidence appears, then the theory must be adapted to allow for it. In creationism, the EVIDENCE must be adapted to fit the theory.

My dd has an extra chromosome - not even a whole one - just a tiny little bit of one. And it means she has all these problems in her life (asd, learning difficulties, a few physical problems etc).
The way I see it - this is evolution in action. The flip side of evolution. For every one tiny leap forward there are a million leaps backward like this.

I can't see any other explanation for this - as her extra gene markers are not inherited from me or her dad but just happened - like a photocopier smudging the copy in her first cell.

This to me, is proof conclusive of evolution - not all of how and why and what triggers it but just the fact that is DOES happen. You do get mutant genes just like that. Most of them are not helpful but every so often there will be one that will give a creature with no eyes half an eye...

My dd is the price that we pay for evolving... Sorry to stray away from fossils and things that happened millions of years ago - but am I wrong???

Sorry, but actually we don't.

when we talk about "evolution" what we mean is "evolution by natural selection"

There are other mechanisms.

Asiatic, the fact that you talk about carbon dating rather than radiometric dating and suggest that it leaves you less likely to agree with evolution suggests that you have been on some creationist websites. Of course they have a vested interest in dismissing any technique which reliably shows that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, so are you sure you want to trust what they say?

Radiometric dating comes in various forms and when independently used to date various things they have independently come up with similar answers.

Carbon dating can also be checked using dendochronology, dating techniques using tree rings.

Scientists don't just make this stuff up!

sweetgrapes no, I don't think you're wrong.

My DS1 has ASD, mild and managable, but definitely traits that will shape his life. ASD is on the rise - maybe we'll change as a race.

There's nothing to say, either, that evolution has to continue to favour intelligence/ civilisation. We may end up with an environment in which the "fittest" are those who *don't" use our big brains.

Best book I ever read on evolution was a novel by Stephen Baxter - called Evolution. Absolutely brilliant.

look at quantum physics , a series of contracdictory and mutually excluding suggestions and ideas, but noone gets into polarised, entrenched positions like they do with evolution.

You're right in that the two sets of theories are handled differently. With quantum physics there are a number of competing theories and enormously complex experiments (eg, the Large Hadron Collider) that are producing terabytes of data to wade through. There is a lot of debate because there is not yet enough data to demonstrate one or other particular set of theories is correct.

Evolution isn't handed like that because, religion-derived absurdities aside, there is no real debate left to be had. Those arguments have been and gone. All the peer-reviewed science shows that evolution is the only sound theory that explains what is going on.

Evolution is just as much a solid theory you can bank on as the theory of gravity. There isn't a debate about gravity vs the "Planets are gigantic hoovers that suck everything down" theory because one has the evidence to support it and the other is made-up nonsense.

Asiatic, re evolution in bacteria, you need to look up the fascinating and ongoing Lenski experiment

It is not just about shuffling alleles, it is about mutation. Read the bit about mutating to be able to use citrate to generate energy, which requires two previous unnoticed mutations to evolve.

The funny thing about comparing evolution to gravity is that we actually understand evolution far better than gravity.

Asiatic. your remark about humans' love of music being evidence against natural selection & evolution made me laugh out loud, so thanks for that

My first response was "Tell that to the birds!" Are they allowed to make music because we know it's built into their survival paradigm? Or because god made them musical for our pleasure? Either way, you have to accept that musicality is a useful gift and therefore enhances genetic survival :)

More specifically - "intelligence" is basically the ability to recognise patterns and extrapolate from them. This ability is well developed in humans (and other apes) but present in most species. Humans are so hard-wired to it that we'll automatically choose a pattern over random, even if the pattern is too complex to be described on a conscious level. We're forever seeking patterns in the world around us.

Music is a geometric pattern, the sort we love best, and its repetitions and variations tap straight into our need for understanding. When you can predict the next bar of a tune, you feel all happy! It's why anthems are popular. Love of music, thus, is a direct expression of our intelligence. As you know, intelligence is thought to be the quality that makes us dominant among (most) species.

asiatic, I think you're confusing "open-minded" with "credulous".

nobel giraffe, have never looked at a creationist website, and never would waste my time, I was talking about carbon dating etc in response to a previous poster who brought it up. However, if this does feature on creationist websites quite possibly that is because it is so easy to pull apart?

garlic frother, it is precisly by comparing human music to birds that lead to my original conclusion
clothesofsand, the entrenched views I am referingto are on display on this thread!
Luiji, I was refering to what I said about domestication earlier.

I think you are right about a lot of the mechanisms of evolution being very open to question, and further research. I think the word is being used in two different ways here, firstly as a specific mechanism of change, and secondly as the change itself, so when I say I am sceptical about some aspects of evolution, I am saying I am sceptical about some of the theories about how change has happened, rather than HAS change happened.

I also think it is a shame that friendly debate about this subject is so difficult. Personally, it is one of my favourite subjects, I find it very interesting indeed. HOWEVER - I don't think holding one specific view or another is particularly important to show you are a) an athiest, or b) not an athiest. It should be quite possible for an athiest to look at the evidence and decide for themselves whether or not they agree with all the conclusions, and it should be possible for a Christian to do ditto.

I grew up believing 100% inthe theory of evolution, but the more I studied it, the less happy I was that the evidence actually lead irrifutably to the conclusions.

Er, thanks for acknowledging my argument while simultaneously dismissing it ...

There is nothing inherent in atheism that says you have to view evolution as correct, of course.

But let's turn this around - if you're uncomfortable with Darwinian evolution, how do you believe that different species came about?

asiatic, where exactly did you study evolution? Which books have you read? If it's your favourite subject, you must have some?

asiatic I would love to debate further on this with you, as I have never had the chance to debate with someone that studied it but doubted evolution. As far as I remember none of my class or my uni professors mentioned doubting it.

Just out of interest, which degree did you study?

(I did palaeobiology... but failed my finals)