Why some people reject evolution

[Danmark]

[you can skip the intro and go right to the last paragraph]

Growing up, I was seldom interested in math. At first it seemed tedious and boring. I invented my own shortcuts to make it easier. Later it required discipline when it got too difficult to do in my head. So, i loved geometry, but lost interest after trig, which I didn't even try to understand. I've been thinking of trying to teach myself calculus, just to see if, at 69 I can do it. So, I looked for a free online course of study and found this:

As Henry Ford said, " Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs ". Too much of the world is complicated by layers of evolution. If you understand how each layer is put down then you can begin to understand the complex systems that govern our world. Charles Darwin wrote in 1859 in his On The Origin of Species,

"When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which had a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, nearly in the same as when we look at any great mechanical invention as the summing of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting, I speak from experience, will the study of natural history become! " http://www.understandingcalculus.com/

So here's the question, do people not believe in evolution just because the Bible tells them so? Or is there another factor; that rather than try to understand it in small steps, one tiny transition at a time, since the entirety of the process ("microbe to man") seems impossible to them, do they reject it out of hand without looking at it step by step?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 236 by For_The_Kingdom]

There are limits to the gene pool. That is what is wrong with your version of evolution.

Please explain exactly how this notion of limits to the gene pool is a problem with how evolution actually works.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 240 by brunumb]

Heck, what limits are there? New information can easily be added.

[otseng]

In the same way evolution [your micro v. macro evolution is a false distinction*] has taken place over hundreds of millions of years whether you see it or not. We can deduce this by looking at the circumstantial evidence provided by fossils, Earth strata, genetics, various dating methods and other evidence from all the sciences. All this data points to and reinforces the same thing, the FACT of evolution.

Deduction does not make something a fact. Also, not sure what you mean that micro v. macro is a false distinction. The terms were coined by an evolutionist.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Microevol ... oevolution

[otseng]

Even if feathers could be produced from scales, five modules would have need to arisen at the same time for feathers to appear. This is the minimum required just to have a feather. However, more adaptations are necessary to make the feathers useful, such as having a skin structure that can hold the feathers in place.

Isn't this the typical half-a-wing is not useful to a bird argument? Why not one module at a time with incremental usefulness?

I'm just pointing out the limitations of the study. As for one module at a time with incremental usefulness, if there's a study that shows that, I'll be the first to admit that it's compelling evidence.

[otseng]

But here's the interesting thing, from this point onward, every single hypothesis or speculation is clearly marked. Every piece of known information is supplanted with physical evidence.

http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

Yes, much of it is hypothesis and speculation. The physical evidence is incomplete so many pieces of the puzzle are fit together in a hypothetical way.

The earliest preserved scales, filaments, or feathers are from the late Jurassic; the earliest crown clade bird with feathers is from the Paleocene. Filamentous feather precursors may have originated nearly 100 million years before the origin of flight, but very few fossil deposits sample this period.

It also says that feathers did not evolve from scales. Which contradicts the earlier claim.

Because birds evolved from reptiles and the integument of present-day reptiles (and most extinct reptiles including most dinosaurs) is characterized by scales, early hypotheses concerning the evolution of feathers began with the assumption that feathers developed from scales, with scales elongating, then growing fringed edges and, ultimately, producing hooked and grooved barbules (Figure 6 below). The problem with that scenario is that scales are basically flat folds of the integument whereas feathers are tubular structures. A pennaceous feather becomes ‘flat’ only after emerging from a cylindrical sheath (Prum and Brush 2002). In addition, the type and distribution of protein (keratin) in feathers and scales differ (Sawyer et al. 2000). The only feature shared by feathers and scales is that they both begin development as a morphologically distinct placode – an epidermal thickening above a condensation, or congregation, of dermal cells (see Figure 8 below). Feathers, then, are not derived from scales, but, rather, are evolutionary novelties with numerous unique features, including the feather follicle, tubular feather germ (an elevated area of epidermal cells), and a complex branching structure (Prum and Brush 2002; Figure 7 below).

So, your source disproves the claim that scales somehow evolved into feathers.

[otseng]

Frankly if you can't exactly define what dog "kind" is you have no legitimate business being part of this conversation, that would make you, taxonomically, just a troll.

As an aside, it's best not to call someone a troll.

As for not being able to provide a clear definition of kind, the truth is that species doesn't have a clear definition either.

"No term is more difficult to define than "species," and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word." Nicholson (1872, p. 20).

"Of late, the futility of attempts to find a universally valid criterion for distinguishing species has come to be fairly generally, if reluctantly, recognized" Dobzhansky (1937, p. 310).

"The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms" Haldane (1956).

"The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001).

"First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require — but cannot be settled by — empirical evidence." Pigliucci (2003).

"An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is an hypothesis (not a fact)" Bonde (1977).

"We show that although discrete phenotypic clusters exist in most [plant] genera (> 80%), the correspondence of taxonomic species to these clusters is poor (< 60%) and no different between plants and animals. ... Contrary to conventional wisdom, plant species are more likely than animal species to represent reproductively independent lineages." Rieseberg et al. (2006).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

So, by your standard, evolutionists cannot partake in the discussion either since there is no clear definition of species.

[Danmark]

In the same way evolution [your micro v. macro evolution is a false distinction*] has taken place over hundreds of millions of years whether you see it or not. We can deduce this by looking at the circumstantial evidence provided by fossils, Earth strata, genetics, various dating methods and other evidence from all the sciences. All this data points to and reinforces the same thing, the FACT of evolution.

Deduction does not make something a fact. Also, not sure what you mean that micro v. macro is a false distinction. The terms were coined by an evolutionist.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Microevol ... oevolution

Sure it does, if the deduction is logical and based on substantiated facts we can deduce the existence of something else. In what way would this deduction not be a fact?

Re: micro v. macro evolution, these are terms used by creationists who allow that the mechanism of evolution is valid in small, obvious steps that even they cannot deny. But this is not a distinction scientists use today.

"First, it is important to realize that scientists do not generally accept the creationist definitions of these terms. The use of the terms is not completely standardized, but generally speaking, microevolution refers to either a change from one generation to the next, or a change within a species, whereas macroevolution is simply a large change caused by an accumulation of microevolutionary changes. This is a very important distinction. Creationists act as if micro and macroevolution are two totally separate processes, but in reality macroevolution is simply an accumulation of microevolutionary events. In other words, microevolution inevitably leads to macroevolution. So if microevolution happens, then, ipso facto, macroevolution also happens.
....
In summary, the creationist argument that “microevolution happens but macroevolution is impossible� is completely arbitrary, has no scientific support, is logically inconsistent, and violates the Law of Transitive Properties. Ergo, it must be rejected. With this arbitrary distinction now defeated, it is clear that accepting microevolution automatically means accepting macroevolution. Therefore, since creationists fully accept microevolution, they must also accept macroevolution."
https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/02/0 ... dichotomy/

We understand evolution much better today than in 1927 when Filipchenko, who did not believe in natural selection, used those terms.
At the time, Filipchenko did subscribe to the idea of evolution. Filipchenko however believed that evolution was an inherent developmental process (orthogenesis), rather than being governed by the process of natural selection.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Microevol ... oevolution

[otseng]

The identity of a living organism and its characteristics are determined by DNA. Change the DNA and you change the characteristics. Change enough of the DNA and you change the organism.

I notice that you still have not explained how your version of evolution works. You can't begin to do that without reference to DNA. Care to try?

It's possible to have heritable changes without changes to the DNA.

Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene function that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

[Danmark]

Even if feathers could be produced from scales, five modules would have need to arisen at the same time for feathers to appear. This is the minimum required just to have a feather. However, more adaptations are necessary to make the feathers useful, such as having a skin structure that can hold the feathers in place.

Isn't this the typical half-a-wing is not useful to a bird argument? Why not one module at a time with incremental usefulness?

I'm just pointing out the limitations of the study. As for one module at a time with incremental usefulness, if there's a study that shows that, I'll be the first to admit that it's compelling evidence.

The evolution of vision is a good example, but demonstrating those incremental changes that eventually resulted in a complex eye requires more study than can be concisely explained. One could start with:

The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they cannot distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from. Eyespots are found in nearly all major animal groups, and are common among unicellular organisms, including euglena.
....
The basic light-processing unit of eyes is the photoreceptor cell, a specialized cell containing two types of molecules in a membrane: the opsin, a light-sensitive protein, surrounding the chromophore, a pigment that distinguishes colors. Groups of such cells are termed "eyespots", and have evolved independently somewhere between 40 and 65 times.
....
After the photosensitive cell region invaginated, there came a point when reducing the width of the light opening became more efficient at increasing visual resolution than continued deepening of the cup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Of course the details I've redacted are important in showing this progression from a primitive 'eye spot' to a 'cup' to what functions like a pupil in a complex eye. That phases of this evolution of the eye have occurred so many times independently is further evidence of the compelling nature of evolution. It seems to be as natural and unstoppable as growth itself, a basic fact of nature.

[Danmark]

The identity of a living organism and its characteristics are determined by DNA. Change the DNA and you change the characteristics. Change enough of the DNA and you change the organism.

I notice that you still have not explained how your version of evolution works. You can't begin to do that without reference to DNA. Care to try?

It's possible to have heritable changes without changes to the DNA.

Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene function that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Indeed it is, but what is the point of mentioning that in terms of the creationism v. evolution debate?

I won't pretend I fully understand this, but it makes sense to me that there can be genetic change without changing the underlying DNA sequence.
"These epigenetic changes may last through cell divisions for the duration of the cell's life, and may also last for multiple generations even though they do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[5] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently."
ibid