Why do people ask the same flawed questions on evolution over and over?

Question

It's amazing to me how many people think that they are poking holes in evolutionary theory by asking the same questions. For instance, if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys around? Instead of asking a question like this, why not spend a few moments trying to research the answer? It might actually help you learn something, contrary to asking a question when you really aren't interested in an answer, already have a preconceived idea of the answer, or are unwilling to understand evolutionary theory a little better. Most people don't even seem to understand what a scientific theory even is. Evolution is the best, most accurate explanation we have for the variety we see in the living world, resulting from the research and experimentation of thousands of scientists for over a century. You can accept or reject the theory, but at least examine the evidence and then have an informed opinion. With an informed opinion, everyone will benefit regardless of your view.

Answer 1

Well, you have to remember that a vast majority of the questions here are from kids in grammar and middle and early high school who have never been taught to question or think independently. They take what they are told and just regurgitate it.

Answer 2

OK, here are a few as I see it. It violates scientific laws like, the laws of thermodynamics and the law that organic material cannot come from inorganic material. Last I heard, there has never been an example shown of increased DNA code. All genetic shifts found are from existing DNA. Your statement of transitional fossils is not correct. There are no transitions between species found. Evolutionists used to think it took millions of years for a new species to gradually evolve. As more fossils are found, this is not being shown. Now they think that sudden changes in the climate would cause rapid mutations that are not preserved in the fossil record. This information came from my college biology class teaching evolution, by the way. Also with transitions. Things not fully developed would be a hindrance and be wiped out, because of the "survival of the fittest" thing. Therefore, if evolution does happen, it should be more rapid. As far as I know, there has never been a beneficial mutation of a species observed. They have all been birth defects without advantage. There is a lot of deceit told about fossils that are later found out. That has got to be an embarrassment for archaeologists. For example: Java man was later found to be a skull of a Gibbon. Nebraska man was a tooth of a pig. Piltdown Man was found to be an orangutan Ramapithicus was just a jaw and a couple of teeth. Additional skeletons show he was just an ape. Lucy's knee bone was found 200 feet deeper than the rest. There is evidence that the universe is not millions of years old. For example, the sun shrinks a certain amount each year. For it to be millions of years old, it would have taken up all the space between the Earth and Sun, so it would be too large for the current orbits of the planets in the solar system. Another example is that space dust is accumulating on the moon. We expected there to be a lot since it is so old, but there isn't that much. Evolution will be a theory forever, because the experiment cannot be repeated. The earth was formed and life came. Even if we could get some goo to come to life in a laboratory, it doesn't prove that's how it really happened way back when. Science is good at repeatable experiments. Science assumes a natural and ordered cause for things. If we use the tool to look at things with a supernatural cause and experiments that cannot be repeated, it's possible to be incorrect and hard to prove one way or the other. Christians and evolutionists have the same facts and evidence. Their starting assumptions are different. Evolutionists assume there is no God. Christians assume there is a God and looks to see if the facts line up with the Bible. If there is a God, He is the only one that was there when the Earth was formed, so He would know best. Also, being open minded can be a good thing, but I try not to be so open minded that my brain leaks out. I'm afraid it happens too often. Edit: I read the article you mentioned. Yes, we are saying the same thing. Punctuated equilibrium would HAVE to happen. Gradual evolution of things would not occur. An eye would have to just appear in one generation and be useful for example. New useful organs have not been observed to just appear - that's my point. We can zap something with radiation, heat, cold, all kinds of stuff. The organism just dies instead of adapting. Therefore, macro evolution cannot be just a bunch of micro-evolutions. A pair of wings has to pop out and be useful - not a gradual bunch of micro-evolutions producing a wing. I watched the video. Yes, bacteria mutates and combines with other genetic code. I have never heard of anything beyond that happening. Shifting gene sequences and combining existing bacteria genes together is a BAD experiment to prove evolution though. You need a controlled environment. To repeat the experiment of evolution, we need to start with non-organic material and have an organism develop with genes somehow. Starting with the whole world of genetic material and sloshing it together does not show how life started. Once you have a cell with genetic material, you need to have additional genetic material added without bringing in EXISTING genetic material. In the beginning, that EXISTING genetic material was not there, right? Did you notice that they are still bacteria? Yes, protocells. Even if we mix up a cell in the lab and can create life and DNA (after all, God did it somehow, why couldn't we re-create the process), that does not show that is how it was actually done. Perhaps there are 2 ways to create life or more. Which one would have been the one. Science cannot show what happened historically. Did you notice that someone is creating the protocells and they aren't just appearing? P.S. StormDevil. Macro evolution is NOT just micro evolution over time. Micro evolution is drifts in EXISTING genetic code and within a species. Macro evolution is changes in the genetic code and creates a new species. Polar Bears with white fur can happen, because the genetic code was already there.

Answer 3

Some people call it regurgiposting, which is a good word, if a trifle awkward or too long. Unfortunately creationists are like politicians, they are not interested in the facts or the evidence. So they keep blathering on about the Piltdown skull even though the fraud was uncovered and publicised by evolutionists 55 years ago, and even before that was not taken seriously by many scientists outside the United Kingdom and few enough inside it.

But by the standards of some of the questions here the old creation/evolution thing is an "informed" debate. I cite one recent question - How did astronauts avoid the asteroids in the van Allen belt? This makes the average creationist look like an informed intellectual.

Answer 4

It is true that there are uninformed creationists out there that ask stupid questions about evolution and make it look like we might have come from monkeys, because there might actually be some monkeys out there that are smarter than them. But it is also true that there are some people out there who say some dumb things about evolution as a way to back it up. I have had some conversations with evolutionists where they do exactly as your saying except for that they keep saying the same mindless things to back up evolution.
Evolution does have some things that back it up, but you have to admit that one doesn't have to poke hard to "put some holes in the theory of evolution", but as you said it is just a theory. Which is why it is interesting that it is hailed by so many as fact, and why some so vehemently defend it, such as some of the people that responded to your question. One person said, I'll paraphrase, "Why do people challenge what all biologists support? Do they think that they are smarter than trained biologists and scientists?" Well, the fact is that there are many biologists and scientists out there who also disbelieve evolution, even ones that aren't Christians. So why, I might ask you, do you so readily defend a theory just because that what you were taught in school, or because you heard from some one who heard from some one that all biologists believe evolution.
So, there are creationists out there that push dumb questions with no real pupose, but there are just as many evolutionists out there doing the same thing.

Answer 5

I don't have an answer to your question as to why people ask the same thing over and over. It does, however, make them look dumb when trying to look smart.

About the monkeys, I believe that geography plays a huge role in it. The first animal to walk fairly upright was found in Ethiopia, and is named "Lucy" after the song that was playing the night when they found her; "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds." Some Lucys may have stayed there, but they were naturally migratory and some may have moved into present-day Europe or Asia, some may have even crossed the Land Bridge into modern-day North America. Just look at the diversity of the human species. Asians evolved, for one reason or another, to have wider, narrower eyes. People living in the area of Russia and in higher elevations have larger chests because they needed larger lungs to make up for the thinner air. Those that stayed in Africa acquired the dark skin color. All of this happened for any evolutionary reason, and we are constantly evolving. Some kids being born today don't have wisdom teeth. This is because we no longer need those huge molars to crush bone and such. Geography, diet, climate, and many more play huge roles in evolution. But to get back to the monkeys, the monkeys today are the descendents of those who didn't migrate, didn't evolve, and stayed monkeys.

Answer 6

As you stated, many people -who do not understand what science is and how to prove or bring a scientific explanation to their view- ask similar questions not to learn/find truth but to show or emphasize gaps and problems of evolution theory they think to prove/support their point of view.

Although I am not agree with evolution as the best and most accurate explanation for the variety we see, you are right, when you look for your answer in the scientific area and current opinion that is mostly accepted. But reality or truth may be different from the mostly accepted things and to find it you sometimes have to look at the big picture of universe, or nanoscaled structures or what you hear in your heart and sometimes to religions and related ideas together with scientific knowledge.

Answer 7

I personally think many of them are trying to play "gotcha" by refering to some statement from a video clip or fundamentalist preacher. If it sounds like the question is coming from someone who is really asking a valid question and is trying to learn, I will try to answer in a reasonable way. I would like to think there are some people who truly are wrestling with the creationist views they were taught as children and the logic of science.

Maybe Y! Answers should put up an automatic response to any question that contains the phrase "why are there still monkeys". The automatic response could say "Go read something written by Richard Dawkins - like The Blind Watchmaker or Climbing Mount Improbable."

Answer 8

To question evolutionary theory, which is accepted by virtually all biologists, is to either make the incredible assumption that one can see some facts that all trained and educated biologists are somehow ignorant of, which is meglamania to a disturbed degree, or to claim that there is a conspiracy, which is what most, such as Anne Coultur do.

Of course there has never been, in the history of science or the history of the world, a worldwide conspiracy by scientists to conceal any fact. Scientists make lousy conspirators. They are skeptical of each other by nature ... they are not secretive by nature ... there is a huge reward structure (prizes, awards, professorships, raises, jobs, and eternal glory) for scientists to disprove the reigning hierarchy ... and there is a huge punishment system (relegation to the dustbin of history) for hiding or fudging evidence ... scientists talk, they publish, they go to conferences, they do everything in the open ... they don't have special secret meetings where they agree to disregard all the creationists and their laughable "evidence".

Answer 9

I agree with you that the monkey question is completely uninformed. I have studied evolution extensively and I do not think there is adequate evidence to believe all the claims of evolutionist. I have noticed; however, when I have asked a question about evolution or other people who seem to understand evolution have questioned evolution over half of the answers say that they simply do not know enough about evolution to come to that conclusion. Many people seem to think that if you look at the evidence there is no way you can deny evolution. I do not think the theory of evolution is an adequate explanation and I am more than happy to debate it but it is hard to have a debate when people will only say you must not know what you are talking about

Answer 10

I agree, in fact, I have a list of all my answers, and when the same question comes up, I just go to my document file, copy and paste the relevant section. I've also written to Yahoo Answers Suggestion section, asking them to give evolution its own category, this would cut down the repetitive questions a bit.
The main problem with the whole evolution debate is that people are trying to debunk science with religion. Evolution is about understanding, Creation is about faith. People see them as mutually exclusive, when, in fact, there is room for both, if that is how you feel (I'm not that religious, myself). The Catholic Church has accepted evolution as probable (see link, below), so have other mainstream churches, all without their religions collapsing. Hopefully others will see the logic.

Answer 11

Christians don't care for the reason for the Evolutionary theory. All they want to do is try to discredit it. All the Evolutionary theory is used for is to find logical sense as to how the different creatures came about. Christians fear that they may find prove against God and would make religion a laughing stock. But what they don't understand is the fact that the Evolutionary Theory and religion work together. Religion to explain the unexplainable and Evolution to explain what can be explained to our knowledge.