Why Evolution is True and Why Most Americans Reject It 

Well, two reasons.. identity-based ideology (people wrap their identity in their belief system/tribe).. AND because evolution is actually non-trivial to understand. It's easier to accept "it was magic" than genetic changes, genes, alleles, populations, selective pressures, niches, chromosomes and so on.

Why is that so many (as in many commenters in this thread) need to be taken by the hand like little children and explained to, over and over, time and time again, in clear terms by thousands of scientists (biologists/molecular bilogists/evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, biochemists, botonists, geologists) who have spent cumulative lifetimes and careers, studying/debating/arguing/drawing careful conclusions of over a century of facts and physical evidence from all parts of the globe [ _is the Earth REALLY a sphere?_ ] within the context and framework of rational thought/the scientific method, only to have them plug their ears, close their eyes and hum while concocting ridiculously concvoluted and non-sensical streams of bullshit because they can't or won't accept reality? Operators are standing-by for answers.

So how did the woodpecker eat until it had a shock absorber in its head?

religon attracts those who believe in their immortality, science says you are dead and there is no after life, I will take science.

Are we all too afraid to accept it?

Not believing in evolution is like not believing the earth is a sphere: the evidence is overwhelming! If you accept it, it’s because you choose not to. I’m soooo disappointed that this is STILL an issue. In modern times religion is dividing people Unfortunately,the opposite of what it was supposed to do.

Surprised by the accommodationist pushback at the end.

Jerry Coyne spends an hour enlightening us all. 2nd questioner asks moderator a question. Moderator starts arguing with JC. Sums up the whole problem.

Religion or not. I can't believe this is all an accident.

Type-o - it should say DON’T accept it.... blah blah. I guess if anyone doesn’t understand what I was intending to type, they prob are one of those”jeazy creazy’s” that don’t accept facts. I will pray for you. Ha

If there is no ontology, no pattern, then how did it all randomly arrive to be fine tuned and mathematically accurate. If mathematics and natural law produced and guided it that does not explain their origin. There is speculation in the new physics that all is consciousness, matter being condensed consciousness with mind a play of ideas on substance, or consciousness. Mind emerging with quantum events is plausible.. Evolution from this perspective would make sense. Consciousness emerging with quantum events would subject consciousness to the same limitations as mind which would appear to be inaccurate. Little wonder it is the hard problem.

SIR FRED HOYLE Falsified Evolution: 1- Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and also an atheist 2- In 1987 he wrote ‘Mathematics of Evolution’ concluding the Darwinian theory is false (accepted micro-evolution) 3- What Hoyle showed was that novel genes for new proteins could not possibly have evolved by the Darwinian process of natural selection; 4- _“Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from slightly different rabbits...”_ 5- Even assuming 95% of the genome is junk and the code is 30% redundant could not save evolution 6- Concerning new genes _“Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.”_ 7- In 2018 TB. Fowler reviewed Hoyle's Critique of Neo-Darwinian Theory and said _“The conclusion is that while Hoyle's mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit, he did not carry his own reasoning far enough and specifically failed to consider the possibility of large variations in selective value.”_ 8- Hoyle did not consider large variations because he knew the obvious negative effect on probability of beneficial change only magnifies the problem; Hoyle 9- _“we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology? The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by a random process"_ The probability = 1e-120 ? 10- Hoyle was so convinced he invented a panspermia model pushing the problem of new genes out into the cosmos admitting it’s still a problem 11- Since Hoyle’s work was verified and its only alternative worse for evolution of new genes his assertion that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong is a *falsification!* Fred Hoyle "The Mathematics of Evolution" And the outcome of this essay? Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwin theory is correct in the small but not in the large." Introduction page 6

Well genetic evolution does happen occasionally. For example, Mt. St. Helens has had a rapid evolution because the environment changed because of the eruption.

His prime example of evolution observed in the fossil record is the *horse!* Which has been basically dumped as a good example because of many discoveries since eg _"Hyracotherium/Eohippus and Orohippus do for instance appear in the fossil record at the same time as Epihippus. Mesohippus and Miohippus appear together with Merychippus and Parahippus. Almost all other horses (with a possible exception of one or two)-Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus and possibly also Miohippus-are represented at the same time during much of the period when they have been found as fossils."_ Scott, ref. 12, p. 408 and Osborn, ref. 11, p. 74; Barnhart, W.R. A Critical Evaluation of the Phylogeny of the Horse, ICR, 1987; MacFadden, ref. 15, pp. 255-257; Storer, J.E. and Bryant, H.N., Biostratigraphy of the Cypress Hills Formation (Eocene to Miocene), Saskatchewan, Journal of Paleontology 67:660-669, 1993; Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age, Nature 366:223-227, 1993; and Scheven, ref.

10 minutes in and facts

It would be amazing if we could prove Evolution or Creation but the only facts we've proven are that adaptations to a certain genus creating another species given all the variables of time period, environment or circumstances is certain. Evolution from a single celled organism is not certain or feasible with any knowledge we have learned or found to date. It would take countless positive mutations just to construct a heart or brain, let alone every other system in place that works together in sync at one single point in time, it is as flawed as flawed could be. Especially the part where one asexual organism split to form two organisms that require eachother and each others reproductive organs to work in sync with no real knowledge of eachothers positive mutations that occurred in said reproductive organ of the other organism. Goodluck with all that, I'm a science major as well and I hope to learn more as we discover more well into the decades to come.

Dog breeding is forced evolution

Everyone is debating the multiverse theory to account for the fine tuning of the cosmological constant and ya'll are chewing the cud about analog darwinian evolution? It's like I just blundered into an online game of COD:MW.

What, I do not know, one person that does not know Evolution is true. I don't think most American reject it. I think a tiny percent of clout chasers reject it for fame.

Cubs win in the next 50 years. Possible but No evidence.

❤❤❤

When did our ancestor

I respect you for respecting evidence. Most creationists accept micro-evolution. In our every day life, we see or hear about the mutations and variations of the bacteria or viruses. Some creationists even accept macro-evolution. I do not understand why you put evolution and creationism incompatible? Teaching about the Creator, the Intelligent Designer and scientific study can go together. My problem about the theory of evolution is not evolution itself. I acknowledge that there seem to be lots of evidence of evolution like the developments of embryos and vestigial organs in whales. But I also recognize that, at least for many thousand years, a peppered moth is always a moth whether they are white or gray. A virus is always a virus not a human being. Even tiger-colored butterfly is always a butterfly not a tiger. If evolution is gradual and continuous, why is there no evidence of continuous evolution? Why are there a lot of evidence for discontinuity and gaps? Why is the so called simple organism so complicated like the structure of a cell and DNA. The most critical problem for me is natural selection or random mutation. For example, some scientists argue that a stone became a house with flushing and electrical systems after 3 billion years. It may be true. My point is that a stone became a house by somebody rather than by natural selection or random mutation. Every computer program is made by the computer programmer. It is much more scientific and intellectual to explain the world in terms of Intelligent Design. Natural selection or random mutation is too poor to be a scientific term. Not because of scientific evidence but because of naturalism and materialism in our culture, Intelligent Design is suppressed and persecuted in many scientific communities. Finally God will vindicate the true science while God will destroy fake science and false ideology. Hallelujah! Praise God! We don't need God? What a fool. Only fools say in their hearts, "there is no God." To fear God is the beginning of true science, wisdom, and life.

I thought he is a comedian

This is, of course, correct. While Yahweh Creation is completely unbelievable.

Thank God for 80% of Americans showing they can think for themselves..

Wait... So, even most Christians believe in evolution according to polling, and you mode a title like that? Very bad look for a science channel. Oof.

What about inbreeding? If life came from the same cells why or rather how do evolutionary believers and scientists explain this conundrum? If some one will indulge me and explain it like as I really wanted to believe..

Is this guy the Pope of Evolution Belief?

He said its a _"paradigm of naturalism"_ without saying what that means.. Let me help you here; NATURALISM = Materialism = Atheism in disguise 1. Nature is comprised of only that which can be measured 2. What can be measured is made of matter or energy 3. Matter and energy always obey the laws of physics 4. Decoherent matter and energy obey the law of cause and effect 5. Causes may be predicted by measuring their effects 6. Naturalism assumes no miracles all causes are natural 7. Causes which violate laws of physics are miracles 8. The cause of nature cannot be nature ‘circular’ 9. Therefore nature is a miracle contradicting the assumption of naturalism Naturalism is falsified. Q.E.D!

I was hoping for "emergence" of life. None

BUTTERFLIES Falsify Evolution: 1- The butterfly has two distinctly different body plans 2- Only the second one has the means of fertilisation and reproduction 3- Evolution assumes it evolved from a creature with one body plan and its own means of fertilisation and reproduction 4- The second body plan cannot function until it is complete in both a male and a female simultaneously 5- Evolution must develop complimentary second body plans in male and female by random mutations without the aid of natural selection over generations 6- Evolution cannot by definition develop a whole body plan without the benefit of natural selection contradicting the basis of the theory 7- It is fanciful to imagine the random process could time the moment of transfer of the complex reproductive mechanism from the first to the second body plan in both a male and female to coincide exactly at the moment when those body plans were complete! 8- _"We can often learn about evolution from the fossil record, but there are relatively few butterfly fossils. Those that do exist, like the 40-million-year-old Prodryas persophone, are remarkably similar to modern-day forms-so the fossil record sheds little light on the origin of today's butterflies."_ American Museum of Natural History *Evolution by Natural Selection is falsified by contradiction of its most basic premise!* Q.E.D. METAMORPHOSIS by David Klinghoffer: _"If one wanted an example of a biological system that could never be explained by natural selection, butterfly metamorphosis would stand at the head of the line."_ Alfred Russel Wallace; _"Contemplating butterflies was among the considerations that drove evolutionary theory’s co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace, to doubt the sufficiency of natural selection to account for the most wondrous aspects of animal life."_ _"In The World of Life, Wallace wrote of how he could satisfyingly account for this only as a feature intended by design"_ *"to lead us to recognize some guiding power, some supreme mind, directing and organizing the blind forces of nature in the production of this marvellous development of life and loveliness"*

There is definintely not enough evidence for proof of evolution. I have found nothing that solves the origin of life and how everything became from any scientist. People only say they believe because schools/scientists give no other option, but they themselves have no clue how everything begun. God created the world, that is how everything was created. Praise God for His scripture that tells us how things are and are to be. Thank God for Jesus who endured death for our sins to be forgiven. God gives life. He gave everyone the choice to choose to be with Him or to choose to be without Him. John 3:16-17 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

He is either knowingly deceiving people, or he is so uninformed that he shouldn’t even be a professor in a high school. First of all right in the beginning he uses switch bait language. Conflating the regular term theory with what scientific theory. He talked about the fossil record as showing gradually more complexity, while completely ignoring the Cambrian explosion as that is totally contradictory to what evolution would have predicted. All of the changes were so big and fast, and didn’t show slow progression. It’s why Stephen j Gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, to explain the sudden changes instead of gradual changes. Then he goes on into the horse evolution which was proven false over 50 years ago. Then he claims that no modern bird has teeth, while there are birds that have teeth. On the talk of vestigial parts, he is either completely unqualified or misleading, as those bone are necessary to support the reproductive organs, and without those the animals would not be able to reproduce, and so they are definitely not vestigial. Is this the best he’s got? because it is ridiculously pathetic so far. If I was an evolutionist, I would be deeply embarrassed by this talk

Lizard arms turned in to wings? How did it eat with thin boned things instead of hands?

They reject it because they know it’s not true

You do realize there is a strong case against evolution right? Perhaps that's a big reason why people are rejecting it. Not to mention that a lot of Christians choose to believe God's word. 😉✝️🙏

Basically Mr. Coyne argues that evolution is true, because evolutionists say it's true......classic reasoning in a circle. What he failed to do was prove that the fabled LUCA mutated into an elephant, and a pine tree I might add. Just the facts please, not SPECULATION, hearsay, assumption, posing as science.

CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF GRADUAL EVOLUTION ON

This guy is full of hot air. He did not even come close to making his case for evolution.

Every single day of your 21st century lives you utilize modern technology that has been intelligently designed and engineered, never ever do you question that as you understand complexity and information necessitates it. A single cell in comparison to the same technologies you use, including the one you have used to access this RU-vid channel is orders of magnitude more complex and contains specified information throughout its New York like city construction. That a person who is not blinded by an insanely flawed paradigm seems to think evolution is exempt from a daily observation simply because it removes God from the equation, is proof of just how desperate the evolution theory is. That people with brains actually think an unguided random process can solve real world problems like flight, in the real world of non fantasy this requires an enormous amount of knowledge, information, engineering, and construction expertise to achieve. But not in Narnia evolution land, here fantasy billions of years can solve anything, no need for an understanding of physics, math, aerodynamics, or engineering, nope cell mutation chucking random dice and hoping for the best is all that's needed. God solves all chicken and egg situations from the macro to the micro, whereas evolution has zero answers and ironically a much larger appeal to 'Fantasy'. Everything comes from nothing, inanimate matter becomes life, then goes on to construct the most complex code in existence, and that's not 'MAGIC'?

EVOLUTION IS WRONG, TOO.

Evolution is a religious belief

There is a reason it is called a theory. Show me the math

Evolution is fact but keep your stupid left-wing politics out of the debate.

If you have not already selected a camp between religion or science, the confrontational language used by the speaker does little to move you to his side. I found myself responding to his intellectually chauvinistic attitude more than the reasonable information he had to give. Science is supposed to be apolitical, but this seemed more like propaganda than true edification.