Do you reject Charles Darwin's theory of evolution? If you do, why?

Question

Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in the book, The Origin of Species, in 1859. At first, many people at the time rejected Darwin's idea. Even though the shook the world, please keep in mind that Darwin, of course, did not invent the theory.
As part of my research, I would like to find out how many people today still reject the theory, and why. Religion? Disgust? Do you have some other idea for the theory of evolution?

Answer 1

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species. Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.

Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr’s Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations—sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms’ physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection—for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits—and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

Some Creationists say that evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

Answer 2

First of all-there is a HUGE misconception here in some of the other answers. WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES! WE SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR WITH THE GREAT APES. Proof is the 90-something identical DNA we share with chimpanzees. That is why there are still apes...

Look-there is enough fossil evidence that we evolved. People just don't want to accept it because to admit that we are evolved animals is beneath them. We want to feel special-and it's psychologically painful to accept that we were not just plopped down on the Earth by some divine hand...

Also-I think there is an issue with the word theory. Does anyone realize exactly what a theory is? It's not "just a theory". A hypothesis is tested over and over by many people before it becomes an accepted theory. However, scientific advancements are always "evolving" because life is always changing...therefore, the more we learn, the more we adjust our previous beliefs... (remember the flat Earth theory??? WRONG!) So far, no one has come up with a better explanation but we have a mountain of evidence that species adapt and change over time... and our idea of time-our lifespan is not long enough. These things take millions of years... so, yes, I believe we evolved. There is no other better explanation...unless you believe a book written by other humans that lived thousands of years ago-that had no idea about the rest of world or much clue about physics, biology etc...

P.S. To Fred the Dog....

Have that doctor prove the existance of God in a way that everyone can understand-not using the bible or "supernatural" means-because there is no evidence that you can prove either exists or is at work in the universe.

Explain away the fossil evidence...

Where are the bones and proof of Jesus? You can believe that he was "assumed into heaven" but you can't fathom that we evolved?????
Explain a virgin birth-where is the evidence?

We have fossil evidence of everything science holds as true about life... now, explain all these things... without using the bible and without relying on the supernatural... or just "God".

It's amazing to me how people can suspend logic....or reject evidence that they can clearly see for themselves...

I'll never forget a fundamentalist website that read in big bold black text... "OTHER GALAXIES DO NOT EXIST"
And there was a picture of Andromeda....
Ignorant to the fact that we can not take a photo of the Milky Way... it was hilarious and appalling that people actually believed the narrow minded rhetoric....

*Sigh*

Answer 3

I think it's important to note that among actual scientists, there is no rejection, evolution is accepted as the method for speciation. While the article is old, Newsweek polled 480,000 earth or life scientists and only 700 accepted creationism as both a valid science and the reason for the variety of organisms that inhabit earth. With this absurdly low figure, and oft-repeated creationist claims that "many" scientists reject evolution (particularly the Discovery Institutes list of scientists), the National Center for Science Education actually started a list of "Scientists Named Steve" that support Evolution that now outnumbers the Discovery Institutes list.

As far as the general population goes, the only reason to not accept Evolution is both religious and ignorance of science and scientific method. I've never seen an argument against evolution didn't support Creationism as the reason for the variety of life. These arguments are often based on a literal interpretation of the Bible coupled with either ignorance or gross misunderstanding of science. Often used example are the "If we descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", the misunderstanding of the word 'Theory', or the irreducible complexity argument, which Darwin actually addressed in The Origin of Species.

Another dividing line is the interpretation that Evolution is somehow atheist, anti-religion, or at worst tries to disprove God's existence. Once again we hit a wall of ignorance, anti-evolutionists don't understand that science doesn't address God's involvement in the origin of life because it's fundamentally unprovable and untestable by scientific method. On the same token, the lack of any mention of God makes any theory of the origin of life and species irrelevant. Really the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, both are possible, but only one can be science. Personally, as an agnostic, I've always thought that if there is a God, that he has done all his work through natural law, and it would only make sense that he would do the same with life.

Answer 4

Questions for Evolutionists
by Dr. Kent Hovind

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

Answer 5

For the anti-evolution fans of Dr. Kent Hovind.

It's really cute when people who obviously have no grasp of basic scientific concepts claim they can positively refute evolution.

Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill [3].

Theres nothing wrong with believing what you want to believe, but believe what you want in church. Don't parade around like you're a scientist telling people you have all of this great "proof" that evolution is a crock.

Good science is a continuous process and theorys change because the technology developed to study those theorys gets better.

Oh yeah, and if you really want to learn about evolution....don't ask the guy who got his degree from a school that has no faculty.

Answer 6

The overwhelming majority of mainstream scientists who work in universities/hospitals/research institutes know the theory of evolution is correct. Don't be fooled by the word 'theory'. A theory in scientific terms means it is an extensively tested hypothesis. All the available evidence, and there is a mountain of it -- from humans to viruses and everything else -- points to Darwin's theory being essentially correct.

The creationists/intelligent designers don't understand the science and misinterpret the word theory to its common usage. Their arguments against evolution are based on pig ignorance and are laughable to anyone with a basic education in biology and molecular biology. One of their classic "arguments" is that if humans were derived from apes, there would be no apes alive today. It's like saying if budgies are derived from parrots, there would only be one species of parrot, the budgie, alive today. See what I mean in regard to the appalling level of ignorance displayed by the ID people. It's sad to see in a world where information is so easily available.

Sorry for rambling on so long ...

Answer 7

I do not reject Charles Darwin's theory of evolution because there is no proof that it is false. At this time, it is the most realistic theory.

Answer 8

No. I understand the Theory of Evolution.

I actually don't think it's possible to reject the Theory. People who say they reject it, just don't understand it. And they are usually too closed minded to listen to explanations.

I am reminded of the story of a man in an airport. It's a busy airport with planes flying overhead frequently. The man is lecturing to a number of aerospace engineers. The man is saying;

" . . . heavier than air flight is simply ridiculous . . . it just isn't logical to think something made of heavy metal can fly like a bird . . ."

That man is not able to reject the the theory of heavier than air flight, no matter how much he claims it's impossible. For Creationists, Evolution is like that. It is unaffected by their ignorance.

Answer 9

I reject it on scientific evidence. Although there is alot of evidence of point mutation being passed on to descendents (however this tends to be short lived...lasting only a handful of generations) there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for the origin of species theory.

To be blunt, despite incredible amounts of sophisticated scientific observation, not the slightest bit of evidence has been observed that shows that one species, in any way, turns into another. There are no intermediate forms. No slow, incremental changes of one species into another.

Quite the contrary, the evidence is quite clear. Species appear and disappear both rapidly and mysteriously. Who knows what the process is behind this. However, it is pretty damn clear that it is most definitely not evolution. That's what science says.

However, politics are currently using "evolution" as a war against religion. They trot out the evidence for point mutation and then change what type of evolution they are talking about in mid-argument to claim that the second sort of evolution is scientifically valid (when it absolutely is not). This supposedly invalidates creationism (it does nothing of the sort), claiming that a competing explanation is supported by science (it's not) making creationism irrational. These are all lies and the agenda of the people making these claims is suspect.

Answer 10

This is more of an answer to those that say the theory of evolution is flawed and has "large gaps."

First of all, Christianity and religion itself has no scientific evidence whatsoever. The fact that we can carbon date things to millions of years ago proves that the earth is not 4,000 years old like many stupid Old Testament-hugging Christians believe. Religion is based on a belief, which is like saying "Because I believe that I can fly, if I jump off this building, I will fly." It's total bullshit. The problem is, with religion, it's such a big problem, that no building is tall enough for all the stupid religious ******* to jump off of.

The Theory of Evolution actually has undeniable scientific evidence which has already been presented in lots of these answers. If you deny reason, then you might as well be an ape.

"Man is a reed, the weakest in nature. A virus, a vapor is enough to kill him. But man can think and it is of this that our dignity consists. Let us strive to think well." ---Blaise Pascal

Answer 11

First off, it's a theory and not a fact. Darwin saw similarities between the skeletal system between birds and reptiles. Are the similarities due to evolution or are they due to being designed by the same Person.

The vast intelligence that is evident by the way our earth, the animals, the plants and everything functions disprove that this all could happen by accident. If you had a pocketwatch that was completely dissassembled, put it in a box and shook it, what are the chances that the watch would be completely assembled when you opened the box? What are the chances of our earth being the perfect distance from the sun, having an atmosphere that sustains us, and a moon that acts in such a way as to keep the earth in rotational balance? Not to mention the complex ecological system on earth. All these and much more point to signs of a loving Creator.