Why do evolutionist claim that anyone who does not believe in evolution must be uninformed?

Question

I have a degree in zoology, have studied evolution for eight years and concluded there is not adequate scientific evidence for me to believe evolution. I had a biology professor who felt the same way.

I like that several people have answered this questioned by saying I must not have all the information. I just do not think evolution can explain everything present in nature.

This question has nothing to do with creationism. If you simply accept evolution because you cannot find a better explaination you are doing exactly what you accuse creationist of doing. I am looking for a better explaination than evolution.

I went to The Ohio State University.
Is that secular enough for you

Researchers have been unable to reproductively isolate a species by selective breeding. They have produced birds that are so small they cannot break out of their shell but they are still able to reproduce with others of their species. All dog breeds are able to reproduce and produce viable young will all other dog breeds including wild dogs. If this cannot be done in a lab, I do not see how it would be possible in the wild because there are so many other factors at work.

Answer 1

They're being as dogmatic as the "religious nuts" they claim are wrong. The fact is that no one can absolutely prove any of the theories. Yes, there is very, very compelling evidence supporting evolution or at least natural selection. But really study the creation story. I don't mean gloss over it. I mean rationally study it and the supporting rationalized data behind it. It's also very compelling.

By the way, it takes more than a weekend at a Sunday school to do that. Just like it takes more than a Discovery Channel special to understand evolution and natural selection.

In the end, you get to choose what you want to believe. There will always be people who will call you a nut or tell you you're a so-and-so for not accepting their point of view, but that's the freedom we should allow others so we may have the same liberty to be silly as well. :)

Answer 2

you probably got enough answers for the first part of your questions.
As an answer for reproductive isolation look at this website
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
The examples are somewhat down the page, so don't give up.
There is no doubt that the species concept is not perfect. Even some distinct species which are in the wild completely isolated from each other (a well known example are lions and tigers) can interbreed in captivity. But that is a problem in how you define a species, not a problem with the process of evolution itself. Nevertheless nobody would say that lions and tigers are not different species. While they are not reproductively isolated they are geographically isolated. And that is quite sufficient.
For examples of observed reproductive isolation look at that link. I don't think all examples are equally good, but there are a couple of good ones.
As an educated person, you also should also have considered the time spans involved in evolutionary processes versus lab processes. Especially if you involve organisms with a not unconsiderable generation time...

Answer 3

You should try a genetic approach, since evolution is basically inherited changes, and it happens through mutation. Mutations are unpredictable, and so the evolution rate cannot be truly known, but since mutations are happening all the time, and some are inherited, it proves evolution is happening, even if it is VERY slow. Personally, I don't think you can study evolution by doing experiments with big animals, bacteria would be a best model because they reproduce more quickly, but the true model for macroevolution are fossils, and the fossil record is incomplete, which doesn't mean that it could be more complete when we find more.

Answer 4

The impreciseness of your question makes me doubt your credentials. I am a zoologist, too and I know that the change in allele frequency over time in a population, evolution, is indisputable. Even the most die hard creationist thinks this is true ( excepting some young earther's ) Now, as for evolution by natural selection, which I think you are referring to, belief does not enter in to the picture. Speciation has more than enough evidence to stand on it's own. Fossil, genetic, molecular, and my favorite, ring species. How do you, a non-believer, explain ring species? Ring species are rather speciation right in front of our eyes. I have never sent a purported scientist here ( include your biology teacher ), but you must know that science stands on the evidence, not belief. Go here.

http://www.talkorigins.org

quite a few pieces of evidence for what is loosely called : macro-evolution.

PS You can keep on " thumbs downing " answers, but the truth does not need your belief to be true and what is true stays true, whether you believe in it or not.

Answer 5

The main reason is that most arguments of people who want to dispute evolution are so bad and mainly show their lack of understanding of the science involved. Common examples are: if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around; evolution is just a theory; there are no transitional fossils; and so on. Arguments like those (and I could go on for a while with more examples) are uneducated. Sorry, there is no doubt about that.

You also don't say that you consider there is not enough evidence for evolution which is not the same with finding evidence against evolution.
There is also no evidence for god, and I assume you believe in god. If you do you are not being consistent.

In addition, just saying you got a degree in zoology doesn't mean to much. Where did you get it and how many peer reviewed papers in reputable scientific journals have you published about this lack of evidence for evolution? Have you come up with alternatives?
We don't understand everything about gravity and current gravitational theory doesn't explain everthing about gravity. Would you say gravity doesn't exist? If so, you may like this website: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

There are christian colleges and university where they have creationist biology professors (e.g. Union University in Tennessee) so I assume you can earn a degree in zoology there. They usually don't publish many papers in such institutions though.

Answer 6

Maybe you are somewhat informed, but your question proves that you are not thinking scientifically. Proponents of evolution do not ask for belief. It is wrong to say that people "believe" in evolution. The whole idea of belief is contrary to science. Evolution is a scientific theory that has power to the extent it is able to explain natural phenomena. To the extent that it can be proved invalid, no one should accept it. To the extent that it does provide explanations, it has power unless and until a better scientific theory that can be proved by experiment comes along to replace it. So far no better scientific theory exists than natural selection. Now some people might not want to accept evolution because they "believe" in something else. Science cannot reach those people. So maybe you want to remain skeptical of this scientific theory either because it challenges a religious belief that you do not want to let go of, or maybe you just think that the theory of evolution is not well enough developed that you should accept it. But you should never say that anyone has ever asked you to believe in evolution or accept it on faith, because no scientist will ever ask to you believe in it in that sense.

Answer 7

Ew chi squares... Evolution is VERY observable when tinkering with H-W equillibrium... my AP biology class once did a lab where certain genotypes were selected against, and the allele frequencies changed quite noticeably after several generations.

Answer 8

Some of the people who believe in evolution are silly. They think that there is enough information. Besides, all the reliable evidence only supports MICROEVOLUTION. Learn the difference, people. Macroevolution=NO BELIEF IN GOD, PERIOD (even if you want to combine the two, you can't do it. Sry, life doesn't work that way). Microevolution=change within a species, but not so much that a monkey can eventually turn into a human. Ok, here is a question to people who accept the theory of evolution. Do you believe in GOD, or do you want to believe in evolution and go to hell unless you change your path of thinking?

Answer 9

I don't think you are uninformed - I just think you are wrong. Evolution is simply a scientific theory that attempts to explain the emergence of new traits and new species. By definition, science only tests that which can be observed. If you have an alternative testable and observable hypothesis, let's hear it. Then it can be tested.

Believe it or not, science is not trying to deny the existence of God. But the existence of God and divine intervention is not testable, and by definition, is not science. That is why intelligent design should not be taught in science class. Not because it conflicts with evolution, but because it isn't science since it cannot be tested.

Answer 10

I think you forget that evolution, as in survival of the fittest to adapt to the environment, is just one side of the coin in the evolvement of any species. The other side is spontaneous changes in DNA that can make for strange (and rapidly different) off-shoots to any species. In the current simplified vocabulary the latter could be called "divine intervention".
But, to me at least, the two together fit the bill of a more or less complete answer.
Imagine if André the Giant or Thalidomid babies could have had kids. A totally new humanoid species would be at hand. 7-8 feet tall and with deformed hands and feet, respectively. Evolution, or divine intervention? As it were, both could not reproduce that well.
To answer your questions more directly: ever seen two species of dogs? They have each been bred to be a certain way. It has taken more than one dog-generation to get them that way. It's totally beyond the comprehension of any dog, who only knows his own parents and his own off-spring. But to the master-brain behind it, the dog breeder, it's evolution at work, baby.
No matter the degree, I would say that calling a person, who for instance denies the unrefutable fact of the existence of different, man-made dog breeds, "uninformed" would not be unfit.