Why do theists reject evolution?

[Michael 345]

Moreover, have you noticed the subliminal prurience of the pose?

The grin has something going for it

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Web.mit.ed
But it's from the god book.
15
Then they took Jonah and threw him overboard, and the raging sea grew calm.
16
At this the men greatly feared the LORD, and they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and made vows to him.
17
But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.

.....end...


And conveniently the whale vomitted him up in dry land...it wasn't frightened of the dry land cause well you know its ancestors were land creatures... dog like I believe ... at least that is what the fossil record tells us.

One wonders how a human could survive in a whale for three days but it must be true after all it's in the book. Even if he didn't suffocate you could think the stomach acid would kill you...plus your skin would go wrinkly.

But the good book is wrong yet again we could note...it referred to a whale as a great fish which of course is incorrect as a whale is a mammal having evolved from a land creature...and folk like Jan thinks this good book is a good authority for biology..well there is one glaring biology mistake....That is a huge mistake...and what do we do if a science book is wrong? Mmmm well we regard it as suspect and unreliable and most times withdraw it from the shelves.

Alex

 

[Write4U]

Awwwww...., Alex

The stories are so exciting and sexy with all the people who "knew" each other. Especially the story of "immaculate conception" is so exciting. A virgin rape beats Lady Chatterley's lover all to hell.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Especially the story of "immaculate conception" is so exciting.

That may be one of those stories where when you think it thru you could say,...nah no way.
But we must remember these stories were invented by folk who probably did not think about detail that much...it's like you watch a bad movie where the plot just does not make sense.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

And it is funny that believers have no problem buying that story but present a truck load of evidence supporting evolution and all of a sudden they become most critical..it's almost like they have decided what to accept before looking at facts and the credibility of the general plot. Clearly there are a few folk who have never eaten from the tree of knowledge..probably they won't go near it in case the talking snake chews their ear..you know I bet that snake is just one of those folk who just want to talk talk talk and you can't get away from...

Alex

 

[Write4U]

you know I bet that snake is just one of those folk who just want to talk talk talk and you can't get away from...

Trump.

 

[billvon]

Evolution
has direction?
eg: are we evolving toward something, or away from something?

Towards greater reproductive fitness. (From a purely evolutionary perspective.)

And, how much of evolution is choice?

Zero.

How much of our genes are saved but not used in the current environment?

All of them. There's no evolutionary mechanism to "replace" genes.

 

[Write4U]

All of them. There's no evolutionary mechanism to "replace" genes.

I'm not sure if I agree with that without qualification.
There is a mutational mechanism that replaces genes.

Human Chromosome 2 isa fusion of two ancestral chromosomes

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

 

[billvon]

I'm not sure if I agree with that without qualification.
There is a mutational mechanism that replaces genes.

That doesn't replace genes; just scrambles them, and does that very rarely. We carry most of our ancestral (and deactivated) genes with us because there is no impetus for us to remove them. If they are not being used there's no pressure to retain OR remove them, and in most environments, mutations are slow.

 

[Write4U]

That doesn't replace genes; just scrambles them, and does that very rarely. We carry most of our ancestral (and deactivated) genes with us because there is no impetus for us to remove them. If they are not being used there's no pressure to retain OR remove them, and in most environments, mutations are slow.

Not in the example I provided. That little mutation yielded the first homo sapiens branch on the hominid tree.

Introduction

All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.....more

Humans are the only ape with 23 pair chromosomes. It's what makes us human.

Conclusion

The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor's chromosomes is overwhelming.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

 

[billvon]

Not in the example I provided. That little mutation yielded the first homo sapiens branch on the hominid tree.

Nothing you posted disagreed with my post.

 

[Write4U]

Nothing you posted disagreed with my post.

Maybe just a little bit?

 

[Write4U]

The grin has something going for it

If it had been a banana, I would have sued for decency.

 

[iceaura]

If they are not being used there's no pressure to retain OR remove them,

They are expensive and dangerous (they have to be copied by the billion, producing various toxins and expending various resources and risking various mishaps via copy error all the way).
That includes risk during reproduction, especially - a significant Darwinian effect.

 

[billvon]

They are expensive and dangerous (they have to be copied by the billion, producing various toxins and expending various resources and risking various mishaps via copy error all the way).

If that were true, natural selection would eliminate all that unused genetic code. It does not; only 1% of our DNA codes for proteins. About half has some (minor) function by forming transposons - markers whose structure is not important, other than to the extent it matches another similar sequence in DNA somewhere else. The rest is 'junk' - noncoding DNA that is now inactive. Evolution does not eliminate it because it doesn't help or hinder the organism.

 

[Write4U]

Evolution does not eliminate it because it doesn't help or hinder the organism.

I agree, but the opposite is also true. Loss of non-coding DNA is also not missed and will never be replaced. So in the long run natural selection will select out non-functional components, by the same process as recognizing and selecting for advantageous mutations, such as occurred in human chromosome 2.

 

[billvon]

I agree, but the opposite is also true. Loss of non-coding DNA is also not missed and will never be replaced. So in the long run natural selection will select out non-functional components

Again, there is no pressure either way. Over time random mutations in germ cells will change noncoding DNA - and this slow change is often used to gauge the distance between similar species. But this is very, very slow - so slow that we still share noncoding DNA with plants.

 

[Vociferous]

In my experience, they have not done that. They have generally not said anything about "creation". However, they have countered arguments, honest and ignorant, as well as bogus and contrived, against evolution.
In my experience, proponents of evolution don't usually start arguments about creation, whereas, creationists do often start arguments about evolution.
I know why they would do that.

So most proponents of evolution don't just presume that abiogenesis is the origin of life? If so, I haven't run across any.
Abiogenesis is the only thing that actually contradicts creationism.

Because most creationists insist that God is responsible for humanity, rather than evolution.

No, many creationists, namely Catholics, concede that evolution occurred. They only doubt abiogenesis. Some might doubt speciation alone accounts for every species, but considering that they believe God had a purpose in creating the universe, they would be just as warranted in believing that God planned for humans to exist, one way or another.

Did you read my previous post where I discussed "most theists"? If not, perhaps now would be a good time. Otherwise, a good time to review to refresh your memory, perhaps.

I notice you avoided answering my question, too. Why?

I read your question as an intentionally rhetorical straw man. Since I never made any claims about religious fundamentalists, I have no idea why you'd think I was claiming atheists caused their rejection of evolution. In fact, I explicitly said I wasn't talking about literalists, in post #19.

My post #16 was in response to the OP, not your reply to it. That you seem to think all my posts, to you or not, should account for things you've posted seems a bit egotistical.

Interesting. In your experience, how is evolution used to argue in favour of abiogenesis?

Scientism. The atheist usually argues that the evidence for evolution lends credence to a natural/accidental origin of life, regardless of the lack of evidence for abiogenesis itself.

It is apparent that God is not needed to explain evolution. If you consider that an argument against God and creation, then I agree with you.

It is apparent that evolution, alone, does not make a compelling enough case to convince everyone. Now, you can chalk that up to ignorance, but believers can do so as well with atheist incredulity of God.

Like what? What are you thinking of?

Gaps in the fossil record. Granted, it takes special circumstances to create fossils, but the gaps can conspicuously obscure the case for major speciation leaps.

Good to know that aspects of evolution are not without evidence!

Actually, I'm interested to know your own position on evolution, Vociferous. You're another theist data point. Do you accept evolution or reject it? If you reject it, of course I'm interested to find out why, seeing as that's the thread topic and all.

I generally believe that evolution occurred, but I'm skeptical of the claims made without actual evidence. Without a complete fossil record (or other clear evidence) significant gaps explained by speciation are not compelling. But there is plenty of evidence that speciation does occur, at least to a lessor extent.

There's every reason to expect that it [abiogenesis] occurred, though, isn't there?

Only if you fall prey to scientism.

 

[paddoboy]

So most proponents of evolution don't just presume that abiogenesis is the origin of life? If so, I haven't run across any.
Abiogenesis is the only thing that actually contradicts creationism.

It contradicts it because one is a scientific fact [once there was no life, then there was] although we as a species, are still ignorant of the exact methodology.

My question would be why so many IDers and creationists, see the need to conduct their evangelistic crusades on science forums, where the obvious nature of Abiogenesis is accepted, as opposed to mythical spaghetti monsters, that don't need to abide by the laws and constants of the universe.
I mean if I fronted up to some church during a Sunday service and started expounding the certainty of Abiogenesis, I would quickly and probably violently, be thrown out on my ear.

 

[paddoboy]

Only if you fall prey to scientism.