[jcreasey123]

I'm wondering why there is pushback to teaching it?  Perhaps its the same as the critical race theory question I had.

[Whollyunknown]

So only my 2 cents could be inaccurate. But I think the only people really opposed to teaching evolution are those with a heavy belief in religion. They contradict each other a fair amount.

I didn't see your question regarding critical race theory, but I believe the pushback against teaching it exists because in theory, in writing, it sounds like it would benefit those most needing help. However, in practice it requires us to think, act, and institute racist policies. Those preaching critical race theory redefine racism to mean that anyone in the minority cannot be racist making it ok to create policies that discriminate based on race so long as they benefit those perceived as being held back by historical events that took place before any of us were born.

My opposition stems from the fact that I don't believe there is institutional racism in any of the very prosperous english speaking countries and I thoroughly believe that any individual can be racist regardless of their station in the world or the power they hold over others.

[olichan12]

If evolution were true, where are the millions of different "in-between" types of humans and other animals? So far, we have a couple of bones, and a lots of drawings of what should be there. That's not history or evidence, but weak theories purported to be true.

[jcreasey123]

Thank you, as you said these are weak theories.  But where is the strongest theory?

[Bik Boy]

Evolution theory is pretty strong, there have been plenty of intermediates found, its just some people want all the intermediates between A and X rather than just C, G, K, J and T, but fossils require fairly special conditions to form so we may never have every link. 
Then broadly there seem to be a couple of types of objectors - those that dislike it on religious grounds, as their sacred texts say their Deity made everything, and reject 'new' information without critically evaluating it, especially if it contradicts their current position. 
Those that don't understand the scientific process and think "theory" means "guess", it doesn't. Theories are essentially working understandings and equations that describe the universe that you can make predictions with, therefore they are more useful than laws. 
Gravity is a theory, have you ever floated off into space?
Heliocentrism is a theory (the theory that the sun is at the centre of the solar system)
Archimedes buoyancy theory, have you ever just accidentally sank in a seaworthy vessel?
Combustion theory, does your car work?
Quantum theory, are you reading this on a working computer?
The theory of general relativity, have you ever used GPS amd its worked?
We live in a technologically advanced time, where the vast majority of things we interact with are goverened by a well understood theory (at least well understood by scientists). 
So if scientists talk about the theory of evolution, they aren't talking about a guess they have about what might be happening. They've already started from the position organisms are created and never change as their null hypothesis and ruled it out. So countless people have worked and refined the theory of evolution. The word theory means its our working understanding and you can make testable predictions, and if more info comes to light the theory can be refined. Because. That's. How. Science. Works.

Of note there have been plenty of examples of evolution in scientific papers, for example E. Coli and citric acid IIRC, though arguably any form of antibiotic resistance to man made antibiotics is evolution, since man made antibiotics didn't exist when bacteria were created. 

There are some other things, but this post is already too long

[Itwasgamer6]

Evolution in itself is just the long term effects of natural selection, but In the modern day there is evidence everywhere for how species change to become new species, we literally made dogs out of wolves and people selectively breed all types of animals for the qualities they prefer, to suggest that we are not subjected to the same rule is just ignorant, if having longer legs makes you more likely to survive in the current environment, then longer legged people will be more likely to procreate and thus there will be more long legged people in future generations, and as the world changes and environments become more or less hostile different things will be considered important for survival, so over millions of years and thousands of generations a population that used to have short legs, paws and a short neck might now have long legs, hooves and a long neck

---

To deny the effects of natural selection is to also deny that children have similar features to their parents which we can all agree in nonsense

[jcreasey123]

The human itself, where did we come from.  We are primates but hairless?  I do not undrstand were we aquatic apes at one point maybe?

[Bik Boy]

RE: Is there any research that says that Evolution is a hoax?.

Registered Members Only

You need to be a registered member to see more on RE: Is there any research that says that Evolution is a hoax?.
Login or Sign up to get access to a huge variety of top quality leaks.

Since there is evidence for human evolution going back 6 million years, I'll let some else explain

[harrytheheir]

Evolution has a very large body of solid science behind it. In fact, people do it every day, when they select certain plant varieties to breed because of certain desirable qualities (look at the history of bananas) or breed animals for certain characteristics (dogs are the best example here). Most of those questioning evolution's "existence" are only focusing particularly on human evolution, and are doing so from a religious viewpoint or from some human-centric viewpoint that can't comprehend we came from some kind of "lesser" species.

For those looking for evidence of "in between" types of animals and humans, while we already have a lot of examples, from Australopithecus up to modern humans, and that chain is still getting new links (look at the "dragon man" fossil just revealed from China). But the fact of the matter is, only something like 0.000001% of previously living things ever become fossils, and then only a fraction of THOSE are ever dug up by by scientists (also, people have only been interested in archaeology for about 250 years or so. It's nearly certain that past cultures discovered what today would be very rare and valuable fossil examples, and probably just threw them away). It's extremely improbable that we will ever uncover every possible missing link sufficient to satisfy these skeptics (realistically, even if we did, they'd just find some other reason to doubt it).

[jcreasey123]

Cant get to the link.

---

Without the links how does primate change to human?  As you say, we can see evolution everyday.  But do we see that?

[lightspeedwin]

The human itself, where did we come from.  We are primates but hairless?  I do not undrstand were we aquatic apes at one point maybe?

We came from aquatic animals that gradually formed limbs. Apes are an offshoot of other animals that eventually grew limbs.

[jcreasey123]

We came from aquatic animals that gradually formed limbs. Apes are an offshoot of other animals that eventually grew limbs.
[/quote]  PPl say we are apes but we are hairless, so when did that happen and why? thats what i would like to know.

[wambogutgolf]

The only ppl pushing back against evolution are a minority of religious fundamentalists (mostly evangelicas in the US).
Most of their arguments are versions of "But I can't even imagine how that would work, so therefore it doesn't", "I can't really comprehend long timescales/large numbers" or simply "I already have an opinion and I don't want to deal with being wrong".

[Tom Cornes]

only about as much as vaccines

[flagrant2]

No, there is zero evidence saying evolution is a hoax. There may be evidence of alternate theorys