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?

[otseng]

Bacteria experiments, both on purpose in the lab and alarmingly in the wild i.e. 'drug resistant superbugs', show how evolution takes place right in front of us.

Another point. Research shows that antibiotic resistance was inherent in bacteria long before modern medicine came along. It is not a result of recent mutations that occurred by humans subjecting bacteria to antibiotics. So, drug resistant superbugs is not evidence of evolution taking place in front of us.

antibiotics and antibiotic biosynthetic pathways are believed to have evolved over millions of years suggesting that antibiotic resistance is an equally ancient phenomenon. Indeed, we have recently shown that antibiotic resistance elements were abundant and diverse in ancient DNA dating from the Pleistocene (30,000 years ago). The concept of the antibiotic resistome predicts that resistance is the result of dynamic and competitive microbial interactions that pre-date human use of antibiotics.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0034953

[Danmark]

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.

In your source, it says, "Complex, image-forming eyes have evolved independently some 50 to 100 times." How exactly is this evidence that evolution is true?

Also, can you show the organism progression of an eye spot to a complex eye? Or is it merely speculation?

The evolutionary process does not travel in a straight line as if it were guided by some purpose or design. Change simply happens and the changes that allow survival endure. That image forming eyes have evolved independently many times shows the inevitability of change. The changes that lead to a complex eye are documented on the site I referenced.

[Danmark]

I was addressing brunumb's question of how changes can occur without reference to DNA.

But, in relation to CvE, one of the key tenets of evolutionary theory is changes occur through DNA mutations. Epigenetics shows that evolutionary theory cannot fully explain heritable changes.

Evolutionary theory is not restricted to DNA changes. Epigenetics does not conflict with TOE, it helps explain it. Do you have some reference that TOE claims change cannot occur except thru DNA?

This is fairly new and detailed stuff and beyond my expertise, but I think this passage is helpful in explaining how modified inheritability works on a smaller scale than the larger DNA structure :
"Transgenerational epigenetics: the inheritance of a modified phenotype from the parental generation without changes in genes or gene sequence. The same epigenetic markers mentioned above may be responsible, but a focus in this category is on the act of inheritance. Note that a few authors have used the more restrictive term “cross-generational� to identify inherited traits resulting from the direct exposure of gametes of the F1 and F2 generations while within the body of the P0 generation, as well as maternal effects, such as provisioning [2,21,22,23,24,25]. While from a mechanistic point of view, it is quite important to distinguish these different forms of epigenetic inheritance, this essay simply uses the Latin root “trans� in creating the broad category of “transgenerational� epigenetics, without attempting to link the inheritance to a specific mechanism. This may disappoint more mechanistically-focused researchers in epigenetics, but at this immature stage of exploring the role of transgenerational epigenetics in evolution and evolutionary process, the phenomena themselves may actually be as important as the specific mechanisms. Finally, it is important to point out that these two foci or categories of epigenetics (I will not call them “definitions�)—intragenerational and transgenerational—are not mutually exclusive. A change in gene expression and, thus, in phenotype in the adult P0 generation caused by DNA methylation, for example, can also be carried over into the F1 generation or beyond."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929538/

[Danmark]

One way this points to evolution being true is that the same process has produced eyes numerous times. Repeatability is a pretty big deal in showing a hypothesis stands up to scrutiny.

Repeatability in this case does not confirm the validity of evolution. Rather, each time eye evolution occurs independently, an explanation needs to be provided each time it occurs. So each time it occurs only compounds the problem. A single eye evolution is hard enough to explain. But for it to occur more than 50 times independently only exacerbates the problem.

Why? To me this simply shows the inevitability of the process. Change is inevitable. The almost infinite variety of species proves it. The fact that it happens is its own demonstration. Each minute change, including those on the sub DNA level [epigenetic] represents a new branch from which more branches emerge. Some of these die out, others continue their ever branching line if the environment is not hostile.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 263 by Danmark]

One potential method of visualizing the process of evolution is a puddle of water pouring through cracks in the ground. It'll carve out its own little tunnels; every so often, the cracks will branch out. In all cases, gravity still ostensibly points downward, and so that's the direction every path goes toward (following the flow of time). Just because one path branched doesn't mean another must stop. All the same, if the ground becomes too solid, then an entire path may stop completely with no new branches forming (an extinction event).

Creationists always seem to employ a dramatically disorganized view of evolutionary theory, as if they suppose that it has to follow some step-ladder function. But the range of analogies used to describe evolutionary theory is vast, and you can always tell when someone correctly understands the theory by how they describe it. Those who don't understand it... is it any wonder when new information is brought up which challenges their false assumptions about it?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 247 by otseng]

brunumb wrote:

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?

otseng wrote:

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

It is not possible to produce new species or new genera without changes in DNA. So, I ask you again to explain your version of evolution.

[benchwarmer]

One way this points to evolution being true is that the same process has produced eyes numerous times. Repeatability is a pretty big deal in showing a hypothesis stands up to scrutiny.

Repeatability in this case does not confirm the validity of evolution. Rather, each time eye evolution occurs independently, an explanation needs to be provided each time it occurs. So each time it occurs only compounds the problem. A single eye evolution is hard enough to explain. But for it to occur more than 50 times independently only exacerbates the problem.

Evolution (the theory) is an explanation of a process. If the process is shown to be repeatable, then it seems the theory holds up to scrutiny. When you find a case where the theory doesn't hold up, then you are onto something.

If a god had "intelligently designed" eyes they should all be perfectly the same and not have 'defects' or deficiencies from one species to the next.

Even if there are "defects", it does not preclude an intelligent designer. There are defects all the time in computer programs, but they were still programmed by intelligent designers.

As someone who writes software for a living, I will never claim my 'creations' are perfect given that I am not 'all knowing'. However, if I were to design some species as a god might, why on earth would I purposely make some of my creations worse at seeing? Because I felt like 'mixing it up' from one species to the next?

For a programming analogy, when I write a system of code, I tend to create common functions so that if (and when) I find a bug in my code, I only have to change it in one spot. Thereby giving my 'creations' the best possible function for all parts of the program to use. I don't write 20 different functions to do the same thing, all with different bugs in them. That's pretty poor design.

Also, can you show the organism progression of an eye spot to a complex eye? Or is it merely speculation?

I think the research here is ongoing. Some progressions have been proposed, but I don't think anyone is claiming to know for certain the exact progression. So I think at this point it is 'educated speculation' based on the current data.

I'd like to point out the data from the fossil record does not show some gradual progression of an eye spot to a complex eye. So, from the evidence, it does support this "educated speculation".

I'm pretty sure most of the recent research focuses on genetics not fossils. The fact that both fields agree (albeit with the fossil record missing pieces of course - we don't have every single specimen that ever lived), is a huge indicator that the theory of evolution is correct.

Bacteria experiments, both on purpose in the lab and alarmingly in the wild i.e. 'drug resistant superbugs', show how evolution takes place right in front of us.

I think everyone accepts microevolution. It is the "microbe to man" that is problematic.

What exactly is 'microevolution' in your words? What exactly stops this process from resulting in large changes over long time periods?

This always seems to be the sticking point. Evolution is observable so now a new label has been created to put some imaginary box around it so that it won't destroy one's religious beliefs. It's an interesting dance to watch as reasonable people finally admit that evolution is a real thing given the mountain of evidence for it, yet need to also preserve ancient tales about how life started.

[benchwarmer]

Bacteria experiments, both on purpose in the lab and alarmingly in the wild i.e. 'drug resistant superbugs', show how evolution takes place right in front of us.

Another point. Research shows that antibiotic resistance was inherent in bacteria long before modern medicine came along. It is not a result of recent mutations that occurred by humans subjecting bacteria to antibiotics. So, drug resistant superbugs is not evidence of evolution taking place in front of us.

antibiotics and antibiotic biosynthetic pathways are believed to have evolved over millions of years suggesting that antibiotic resistance is an equally ancient phenomenon. Indeed, we have recently shown that antibiotic resistance elements were abundant and diverse in ancient DNA dating from the Pleistocene (30,000 years ago). The concept of the antibiotic resistome predicts that resistance is the result of dynamic and competitive microbial interactions that pre-date human use of antibiotics.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0034953

I'm not sure how this is a refutation of evolution of bacteria.

I never suggested that bacteria becoming resistant to drugs is only possible recently, I merely pointed out that we can now observe these drug resistant bacteria.

Perhaps I was not clear how this shows evolution at work.

First, in a nutshell, evolution is simply the process that happens when things that reproduce create offspring with changes.

In order to reproduce, I think all will agree that only organisms that survive long enough to do so will be able to actually do it.

Thus, in the case of 'superbugs', drugs kill all the non resistant strains at the site of contact with the drugs, leaving only those that are resistant to continue reproducing. That means all further offspring at this site of drug use (i.e. your body) will only produce more superbugs (assuming any managed to survive the drugs of course). Some of the new bacteria will be essentially the same, some will have changes due to mutation. If some of these mutations help survive further rounds of drugs, guess which bacteria continue reproducing and become dominant in that body?

Think of it like a filter. There is a natural process in place that weeds out organisms that don't survive long enough to create offspring. We call this natural selection and is the 'driving force' of evolution. Over a long period of time, it will naturally produce organisms that flourish in a given environment since those that can't survive don't get to contribute to the party.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 266 by benchwarmer]

This always seems to be the sticking point. Evolution is observable so now a new label has been created to put some imaginary box around it so that it won't destroy one's religious beliefs.

Exactly!
The crucial point, and one that I would think should end the argument is that those who understand at least the basics of evolution and its factual underpinnings seek to understand the world and are led by facts.

Creationists OTOH, have their conclusion determined at the outset and are constantly dismissing evidence that appears to contradict their preformed opinion which is based on religious belief. However, there ARE data points re: this summary of mine that totally confuse me. I'll use Otseng as an example [not to reduce him to a mere point ]. He is resolutely well informed, intelligent, logical, honest; therefore, I have to consider his arguments and questions. He reminds me that there ARE critics of evolution who honestly question some of the issues re: TOE.

However, I remain utterly baffled about why such folk are not wholly persuaded by the overwhelming evidence and, while fully maintaining their religious beliefs, do not simply accept that God's creation is more wonderful and mysterious than that indicated in the brief description in Genesis. I CAN understand how someone can appreciate the Biblical God, while dismissing the obvious myths of Genesis as examples of man's effort to understand nature and God, as opposed to containing any historical truth.

[otseng]

The evolutionary process does not travel in a straight line as if it were guided by some purpose or design. Change simply happens and the changes that allow survival endure. That image forming eyes have evolved independently many times shows the inevitability of change. The changes that lead to a complex eye are documented on the site I referenced.

Simply saying that "eyes have evolved independently many times shows the inevitability of change" is just a tautology and has no explanatory value.

I agree that the ToE does not claim to involve purpose or design. But, the eye forming 50-100 times independently hints that teleology is involved.

"Much of the genetic machinery employed in eye development is common to all eyed organisms"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

If there is a high degree of commonality to something, a reasonable explanation is there must be a shared causality. For example, there are 2 people who look like each other. A reasonable explanation is that they must be related and share a common ancestor. But, what if it was discovered that they are not related? It could be coincidental that they look like each other. And this is actually not rare. But, what if there are 10 people who look like each other? It becomes more unlikely that it's simply coincidental. If there are 100 people that look like each other and they are all unrelated, it's even more problematic. We would not simply chalk it up to the inevitability of change.

People who look alike are just superficial similarities. But in the case of the eye, it is way more complicated. Major systems have to interoperate at the molecular level. It would be more akin to 100 Watson supercomputers developed, but none of them relied on any shared knowledge. They all independently invented chip making, programming, CPU technology, natural language processing, memory storage, parallel clustering, software technology, etc.