What is the Reason People Debate the theory of Evolution Really?

The only thing i have to say about the subject of evolution is this:

A human DNA molecule is completely different from the DNA molecule of another animal. The same goes for other animals. They are two completely different molecules no matter how similar they may be.

Differences within the human race come from the fact that each of us have certain genes emphasized or de-emphasized more than some others(during the process of protein synthesis)along with some genetic errors/deletions and misprints through our reproduction over the generations.

Its all about logic. To define something properly you must know what it is and what it is not. Part of knowing what something is is knowing what it isn't.

For example: 2 and 3 are not the same. Why? because 3 is one more than 2. The number two may be within the number 3, giving the numbers some commonality or similarity but that does not make them the same(the beauty of math is the commonality).

A hydrogen atom and helium atom have similarity with each other. A helium atom can be made by fusing two hydrogens. Does that make them the same atom? No!

All things have commonality whether it be numbers, atoms, or life forms. That does not make them all the same! The life forms of earth share the same planet so they are probably bound to have some commonality. "We are all made of atom, which make up molecules so we must be the same". Wrong!

I believe the study of biology, studying the function of all a life-forms parts and how it came to be is valuable but acting like humans are born from something inhuman is stupid. All things came from something that wasn't themselves, the infinite force and nonstop forces of the universe and the creator of it.

Evolution when looked at as some form of improvement or suggestion that humans are produced from inhuman life forms justified by referring to the commonality between the lifeforms is stupid, meaningless and a waste of everyone's brain.

And life-forms are not a special thing anyway. All lifeforms do is take in energy and release it which is the same as anything whether its has a mind to preserve self or not. Living and non-living things do the same thing but it seems the nature of creation is expressed through both and not just one.

The debate over what evolution is and what the term means in regards to biology is just proof of the corruption of truth and confusion that persists in certain subjects within the scientific community.

(P.S.):A person or a genetic mutation kicking you in the testes and thus stopping you from reproducing with your own kind does not mean you have become another species. In fact classifying species by reproduction is good but not entirely accurate. The best way is the see if the two lifeforms have the same type of DNA molecule.

Atoms make molecules, the DNA molecules make the more visible and larger structures from different combinations of other molecules in order to produce protein and fats which make up the large organs systems of the body. And all they really basically do is take in energy, energy being mass and motion, and use it up.

And of course, energy is neither created nor destroyed, only stored and transferred.

Why not debate chemistry? That's what it comes down to.

Humans and chimps are two different animals. Cased closed. Their chemistry is not the same.

The DNA is made of chemicals called genes and combinations of those genes are what decide the type of physical characteristics of an animal's organ systems. Molecules that build other molecules.

With the DNA's genes being made up of rows of combinations of adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine(all of which is lined with phosphate deoxyribose) , on more than one row, chimps have a molecular combination that is different than a human's.

The DNA molecule of humans is different than the DNA molecule of chimps. You wouldn't take two different types of alcohol molecules and say they are the same. Being very similar does not mean you are the same.

In a chemical reaction, two different chemicals reacting to the same thing will not take the same path of reaction.

Chimps are not gorillas, and Gorillas are not orangutans. They are all different, DNA-wise, and because of that their organ systems are built and function differently.

ALL THESE APES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CREATURES. STOP EQUATING APPLES TO ORANGES.

And there is no super-powered gene that allows humans or other animals to morph their DNA molecule into another, gaining new genes. The only thing that makes humans different from each other is that some genes are used in greater or lesser amounts than others and gene deletions which is known as "mutations".

The basic molecular structures of the DNA being changed is something every life form resists and makes sure does not happen.

Gene deletions, also known as mutations, can have a neutral effect or they can have a negative effect. Genetic mutations happen since the DNA can not work right 100 percent of the time. They can occur randomly or be caused by some living and environmental conditions.

But what about mutations where genes are duplicated? What about when some of the nucleotides(the components of genes, known as Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine) are switched out with others?

Autism and Down syndrome don't come from mutation of all the DNA molecules. Because of the fact that some DNA is left unmutated is the reason why people are physically impaired in some way. There is a little more than 100 genes that are mutated and there are 3 billion genes in one DNA molecule. The extra chromosomes an autistic person has is due to the mutation of a few of their DNA molecules.

Autism, Down syndrome, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, albinism and others are not evolution. Mutations that don't affect the chromosome number allows people to have children. The reason people with albinism can have children without it is because not all their DNA molecules are mutated.

Genetic damage is not evolution.

Mutations can not cause evolution.

Every DNA molecule in the body would have to change and they would all have to change the exact same way.

You have a better chance of winning the multi-million dollar lottery every single day for the rest of your life than that ever happening. A complete DNA molecule is made up of billions of nucleotides.

The only reason we can spot a mutation is because we can look at people's DNA groups(chromosomes) and tell that some DNA molecules are different than the others.

Mutations change your DNA molecules into other molecules. When these molecules are in close proximity to your other DNA molecules they become a bio-chemical weapon against your own body.

A complete change of all your DNA molecules to another molecule is the death of living thing. Mutation is genetic damage and the final result is death.

Rewriting a person's entire genome should not be considered a good thing; its just one of many ways to die.

What I'm saying is this: Humans do not add any new molecular combinations, known as genes, that make up the DNA. Humans merely change how they express their DNA and the DNA is getting weaker throughout the generations.

My Final Words:

The theory of evolution is not what allows scientist to understand biology but chemistry is. Chemistry is the key to biology.

The more you know about chemistry the more you know about biology. Biochemistry is the name of the game.

Since we are all molecules and molecules can form in multiple different ways, there did not have to exist an organism with all the DNA of earth's organisms combined that somehow got split apart, bit by bit. And the notion that human biology only reveals itself through genetic variation of human populations is stupid. Its all about chemistry in the end!

Science is about getting results not stupid theories that don't give you anything. Knowledge and the method by which you can acquire it so you can directly apply that knowledge. Science is about knowing how to use the world around you.

The theory of evolution is the dumbing down of biochemistry. Ultimately, science speaks in terms of chemistry and not stupid, unproven theories.

Evolution is not scientific discovery, its science fiction. It should not be taught in schools. Anything can be called a scientific study, but that does not mean it makes any sense and exists in the real world.

Not only that, but its has not contributed to any advancement in biochemistry, agriculture, medicine, etc.

DNA is made rows of specific nucleotide combinations. Adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine are the four nucleotides. The difference between life forms comes from the difference of nucleotides they possess on each row.

DNA molecules can be made of billions of nucleotides. How can random changes of any kind to a random DNA molecule, produce all the life-forms seen on earth? Its like saying that my Marvel vs Capcom fighting game can form after billions of years of random change to a random computer disk.

Computers disks are made of billions of binary code characters, ones and zeros, but I would never say a game of Marvel vs Capcom can randomly appear through random changes to a computer disk. Sadly, this is the sort of nonsense that evolution says about DNA.

There are millions of chemical reactions your body is doing every second and all goes towards making different structures work together and work well, all because of DNA molecules. The amount of chemical reactions the body does in a day could fill several books and would take up more than 500 gigabytes of data on a computer hard drive.

Let me know what you think. in your opinion, what do you think is the reason people debate over Evolution?

I'm a creationist and I debate the "theory" of evolution because it is not true and is actually anti-scientific.

Okay. What do you is scientific or unscientific about it?

@dum529001: Pretty much all of it. One of the biggest ones is where did life originally come from? It's been scientifically proven that life can only come from life. Some scientists say that this law was broken once, when life arose from non living chemicals somehow became the first cell, but they have no proof; and every time they tried to prove it they've failed. The closest they've ever come is making some of the building blocks of cells, which to give an example, is like saying that because you know how to make a brick or form a pane of glass, you know how to build a skyscraper.

Also, mutations have been shown 99.99% of the time to remove features from a creature, not add them. And out of that 0.01%, only 0.000000000000001% of them have been of any help to the creature.

The fossil record actually has the bones of creatures that, if the evolutionists are correct, were supposed to have lived millions of years apart in the same layers with each other, in separate layers but in the complete reverse order of what they are supposed to be; it's a real mess.

Oh, and just in case you try to bring up radioisotope and carbon dating to try and say that that proves that the Earth is as old as they say, about twelve years after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, some scientists took some of the freshly formed rock from the eruption and sent it to them to be dated. The results came back saying that the rock was anywhere between 340,000 to 2.8 million years old!

If you want more, you can go to Answers in Genesis and I.C.R. for more. They're the experts, not me.

to know where we came from...where we originated...who were our predecessors etc

Thanks for the input.

Zing!

Only people in America debate it. Most other countries accept it because it's a Scientific fact and accepted by 97% of the Scientific community. Evolution is a Scientific theory, this is not the same as a regular theory.

It's science vs religion duh

@fuzzylittlerodent: Best response yet.

Okay, but what is the confusion going on about it?

UNtrue. It is debated in a few areas of the UK as well, or Commonwealth if you prefer (including areas aof South Africa and Papua New Guinea), Australia and New Zealand.

Look up the Hillsong Group.

What you said there was as much of a leap of Faith and assumption as and Creationist assuming fossil record indications come from a misreading or minterpretation of data.

@jugjugbanks: That is not true whatsoever (in regards to the UK). In the UK, Evolution is presented in the Biology classroom as a Scientific fact --- and it is taught accordingly so.

Also, apply context. Clearly there will be 'some' debates but the general consensus on Evolution is much tighter in the UK, probably less-so in Islamic countries.

Didn't read and off-topic.

:D

You apply context. You said only people in America debate it. That is a global context. You are patently wrong as there have been debates in other English speaking countries arguing the issue. You are shifying goalposts and speaking emotionally in the face of some rather simple facts IN CONTEXT of your statement, which is what atheists claim is the problem with Creedists.

And in fact a Minister in the UK featured on The Grumpies TV show herself had her own show on Faith in which she (a Parliament Minister) had an argument involving such things with Hitchens himself.

Why is this on general discussion? Belongs in ot.

@jugjugbanks: Sigh...

Apply context to my post before holding it to a nonsensical standard. For most of the part, America is what intensely debates Evolution. Any such debate would be ruthlessly suppressed in an Islamic countries:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html

Other countries can accept Evolution less than the U.S yet still, on a general level have much less debate regarding it.

In the UK, as I just told you, Evolution is taught as fact. In America, it can differ in the red states where it's pressured to teach it as an 'alternative' theory. This is why in America, it generates intense debate with the large Scientific community.

Again, there will be some debates in the UK, as it'd be impossible for there not to be but the level of debate is relatively low.

@frozen: Out of curiosity, do you have any religious beliefs, or are you agnostic/atheist?

I will give a short description of my beliefs at this point:

I am an Atheist who believes that God cannot be disproved with 100% certainty but based on evidence, it's highly unlikely he exists, therefore the odds are at 99% non-existent.

I hold aspects of Atheist-Christian beliefs because I admire the moral teachings of Jesus and also aspects of Secular-Buddhism. I also hold loose aspects of Secular-Sikhism.

Crazy religious people being crazy.

Creationism.....time to pull it out and get back in the real world!

@mr_clockwork91 A very impressive post. Did you just research that for this topic or had you researched it/ been thought it beforehand?

I actually just did read, lol. And because people can't help but hold on to their beliefs. It's understandable, really.

"A human DNA molecule is completely different from the DNA molecule of another animal. The same goes for other animals. They are two completely different molecules no matter how similar they may be."

Of course it is. But that doesn't mean that one should ignore, or overlook, the similarities between the DNA of humans, and the DNA of various other animals.

Like the fact that the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

"I believe the study of biology, studying the function of all a life-forms parts and how it came to be is valuable but acting like humans are born from something inhuman is stupid. All things came from something that wasn't themselves, the infinite force and nonstop forces of the universe and the creator of it."

I suppose you have an explanation then, for why all the evidence points towards just that, namely that evolution is true?

Like having an explanation for vestigial organs and limbs?

Ever see "Inherit the Wind"? Amazing movie about the Scopes Trial. There was one part where the townspeople were singing about how they were going to hang the teacher like it was some noble patriotic act.

Good movie. I'd like a modern version done right for todays audience.

With movies, "modern version" and "done right" is often an oxymoron. Not always, but often.

@alphaq: I researched most of it at hand. It gets old seeing creationists trying to discredit evolution with their personal beliefs. Evolution makes no claims on gods, I'd wish religious people would understand that they can accept evolution and still believe in their religion, they just may not take their creation origin to be literal and take it figuratively.

Long ago, people thought the Earth was flat and they still went to Heaven.

Same applies for evolution. If someone can prove to me evolution happened then I'll agree, if someone can disprove it then I'll accept it as well. God looks for your commitment, not your science degree. Whether evolution happened or not, TBH I don't care because Biology is definitely not my favorite subject.

Yeah, your right. Upon reflection, I used the wrong wording, didn't need or mean to use the word right.

That happens to me all the time

v_v can't we all just get along.

Holy hell. This site sometimes.

Do ya really wanna believe ya came from a monkey, ape watever

I'm gonna copy @claymore1998 's usual statement.

Interesting. ^^ Lol

Moved to Off Topic.

As to the question there are a few reasons, I would say the biggest are misinformation, bias and also a lack of understanding of evolution. Misinformation? In the sense that there are several groups, individuals, websites, so on that intentionally and dishonestly attempt to sway people into believing evolution is all sorts of things it isn't. The amount of times I have seen people copy and paste paragraphs, and stats from websites that not only lack credibility but can be easy pointed out as fallacious - under the condition that someone can be bothered to break down the science involved - which can be very tedious sometimes especially having to explain to someone who 1. isn't scientifically literate. 2. Doesn't realize the place they got their stats has an agenda. 3. They think you have an agenda because you are a religious and fervent Darwinist, or "scientician who uses just as much faith and has no morals and just wants to have sex and do drugs and that why you believe in arcane warlock magic like evolution because you hate god and a mind fooled by Dawkings and Hitler".

Then there is some overlap with them and groups, individuals who really just do not know better. Like when Ray Comfort says that banana's are perfect explanations for why evolution isn't true I think he really did believe that. Some people think that words only have one meaning, and so get confused, angry, annoyed, frustrated or just have denial over situations like trying to explain that a scientific theory is not the same as how many apply the term theory colloquially. Informal use of theory? Unsupported idea? Hunch? Guess? That's not how theory is used in science, somewhat oddly initially is informal use of theory actually corresponds better with hypothesis in science. Some people don't buy that though, evolution is "just a theory" and not a law, or fact, apparently you still have to prove it to them. Basically such people do not understand what a scientific theory is and somehow often react to that sentiment as being insulting because it implies that they are ignorant and - anyway. In any fruitful or production conversation individuals need to find common ground, but if you can't even agree about basic language and words then finding agreement about complicated, comprehensive scientific theories ain't likely to happen.

Bias is more broad than just arguments for and against evolution, sometimes people arrive to conclusions first and then look for ways to justify and affirm what they already think or believe, it actually requires a fair bit of intelligence and critical thinking as well as knowledge and information to possess the skills and ability to actually stay neutral on claims and assertions and draw conclusions only where objective evidence and information points to. Then also to be transparent as far as what you understand and believe and why and being okay with admitting to error when better evidence comes along. Though again, need to actually be able to competently analysis information, evidence to determine superiority, strengths, weaknesses, consider alternatives, competing claims so on.

Sometimes you can't just throw understood scientific facts at people, sometimes you have to be a bit more of a peoples person, learn about what they think and why, understand then and essentially translate some science ideas to them. I actually didn't become science literate or knowledgable until after I left school, the way many ideas were presented to me at school didn't really make sense, and thats okay, thankfully I wasn't resistant to learning about it, but my point is you can't throw science facts and knowledge and some people and just expect them to get it, first you might have to understand them in order to successfully assist pushing them into a director where they can actually be open to approaching science sincerely with out suspicion, cynicism or apprehension. Which can actually be true of a lot of interactions really.

Thanks for suggesting that, watching it right now.

@theblondegod: Hehe copy cat >_>

Yep. In my experience you have to struggle when people communicate science or any subject in a way that doesn't make sense. Misinformation is a big one as well.

Then you'd just get a whole new wave of "Heaven is for Real" and "God's Not Dead" films.

@sc: /thread

Who else just scrolled through the thread to quote the guy with the right answer?

@mr_clockwork91 Good job. Yes creationism is religious and personal, it doesn't deserve to be taken as an alternative scientific theory, at least not in classrooms, but I don't mind when legitimate sources debate creationism from a scientific standpoint purely because it is better to keep research into evolution on it's toes, lest it become stagnant.

I agree creation myths should be taken figuratively, although I don't see any virtuous message from the Christian one.

Pretty much sums up my views on education.

You're welcome :D

I leave it in the hands of better men to find the origins of life, I think both scientifically and religiously speaking both have a story to tell, whether one is right and the other isn't isn't important to me. I side with religions a bit more because it tells a story of men and gods that I find to be captivating. But the evolution theory, is that we all originated from a single cell that went on to create every animal on Earth. I would rather much read myths, legends, and religious books than to read a scientific text book, I want the story. And I'm happy not knowing how we got here, because that isn't important to me, what is important is the here and now.

@sc: Neil deGrasse Tyson show Cosmos present evolution and science in an interesting way, I love science, and I watch many other science shows, but it just isn't the same as the amazing stories told by religions. I also have a much more fascination with History as well. History is a story we build with the evidence from the past, not all of it could be said to be absolutely or completely true.

Cause its hard to evolve Feebas into Milotic