Why people deny the evolution theory?

Why people deny the evolution theory?

>This Nile crocodile shows off his ability to stand on its hind legs to reach for a live bird on a stick being fed to it by villagers

Wtf im a scalie now

God Madonna really loves public nudism

Why non-english speakers always leave out "do" when starting with "Why"?

They deny it because their are idiots.
Also, ffs Mario, it's jumping not "standing", get your shit together.

*they're, fucking brain farts

Fuck... lost

Are you implying that I'm a crocodile?

Are you queen elizabeth?

kekekek

It's like when I try to speak Spanish to my Mexican neighbors. I leave out all the unnecessary words and concentrate on the message.

I predict that far enough into the future, only pretentious fops will use standard english as we know it today.

And I suppose you were being ironic when you left "do" out of your question.

It always comes down to some form of misunderstanding of the process of evolution. I havne't met a single person who denies it for non-religious reasons after truly understanding how evolution works in theory.

actually it's jumping.

This .people who deny evolution are just triggered by the monkeys and human meme because mah adam and eve

Do you have them in turkey too or you're just a tourist passy by?

learn the difference between macro and micro evolution

some people think it contradicts their religion when it really doesn't

Basically the same thing. Only variable is time.

This. Protestantism has its difficulties admitting that world isn't autistic. But their opposition (fedoras) do the same mistake.

>Learn the difference between walking to your kitchen and walking to the store

Unless you use kiwis as a mean of transport is basically the same thing.

1) Religious reasons
2). To be edgy contrarian
3). They don't really understand how it works or only know a strawman of it.

The single best way to convince one of these people is to simply ask them where dogs come from.

There is also another. Tied to time, but not quite.
Our incapability to produce new species. It happens, and it has been done (corn), but test labs fail to document the changes in bacteria and flies necessary to make it a functional, new species.

So much arrogance in the field.

Maybe it has more to do with the definition of specie rather than the changes. Since the line of what is a specie is so goddamn confusing there are literally several definitions for it.

>The single best way to convince one of these people is to simply ask them where dogs come from.

and then they say that god created dogs.

I clearly misunderstood your point.

Clearly most dog breeds (say, poodles) are not found in nor are they adapted to the wild. If I'm not mistaken, they've been bred during historic (not prehistoric) times.

>Maybe it has more to do with the definition of specie rather than the changes
We can basically deteriorate them until they stop functioning. We can't improve them. We can minmax their stats.

I'm more ready to accept that we need a component more. Where, though? Quantum mechanics? Who knows. But that's what science is about.

This. There's no fixed point where one set of mutation becomes another species. We're all just differently mutated life force, matter, or whatever you want to call it. Labels are arbitrary. We could label each individual human as a new race or subspecies and be equally right.

If you can get them to accept that poodles came from wolves (which is undeniable), then the idea of ape to man is much less of a stretch.

That beautiful underbelly hide.

>then the idea of ape to man is much less of a stretch.

and as long as we're acting like educated grownups in this thread, lets remember that nobody says man came from apes, but rather that we have a common ancestor.

>We're all just differently mutated life force, matter, or whatever you want to call it.
We're all something alright. But whenever you use the word 'just' to describe something, you take from it. You force reality to conform to your take on reality.
Basically you do the 'JUST' meme.

Reductionism is just that.

Semantics. We don't come from modern apes of course . We have a now instinct common ancestor with chimps . That common ancestor was an ape. You're narrowing the definition of "ape" to today's apes. Doesn't really matter, we're talking about the same thing.

Or, that we are apes, more specifically.

English has a lot of excessive words. Do, the, is. They genrally add nothing to the meaning. So people with normal functional languages exculde them.

>villagers
>.
The autism is radiating.

Except we also have those auxiliar words in our languages.
>Why do
>Porque é que
It gets even more complicated if anything.

>As long as I'm pretentious sounding, I can repeat Ken Ham's pseudoscience evolutionary alternatives without repercussion!

I'm sure you can give me new DNA strands on the go.
Nah, you think too simply of me.

I don't think you can force advancement. You can force change. But all change is not advancing.
We can minmax genes in a lab, we can go beyond that in the fields. Why is this?
Corn is proof that we can go beyond. But we systematically fail with labs and technocracies. Why?

I'm thinking it's something deeper. Something to do with the very nature of our being, and existence in general.

Only subhuman It*lians do it.