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?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 10 by Wootah]
You don't have to believe that. How exactly is your scenario "best case?"

Try the follwoing scenario instead: A mutation has to give a survival advantage in some instances but not necessarily all instances, it has to be barely advantageous enough that during a typical life span of those critters, to have allowed that creature a slightly better than average chance of having an offspring so that the gene would be dominant. And this has happened trillions of times. Is that still hard to believe?

[benchwarmer]

Think about it in best case scenarios. A mutation has to give a survival advantage, it has to be so advantageous that during an extinction event it has to have allowed that creature to survive so that the gene would be dominant. And this has happened millions of times.

Maybe think about it a different way. Mutations happen. I think almost everyone agrees on that.

Organisms reproduce or they don't generate offspring. I think everyone agrees on that.

So, at this point, most of us should agree that the only mutations that will survive will be the ones passed on by the organisms that managed to reproduce (for whatever reason).

Some of those mutations will be disadvantageous in the long run, some will be neutral, and some will be advantageous in the long run.

Over a long period of reproductive cycles, any mutations that get in the way of reproduction occurring will get weeded out of the gene pool. i.e. organisms that don't get a chance to reproduce for whatever reason can't pass on their genes (including whatever mutations they had accumulated to this point in the evolutionary tree).

I think some people get too caught up thinking that as soon as a mutation happens it must immediately provide a survival advantage or the whole theory goes out the window.

I actually think you should show a little mercy on people that find that hard to believe.

Agreed, at first it can be hard to wrap your head around unless you take it one step at a time. The vast amount of time it takes for the species that most of us see day to day (humans, dogs, etc) to reproduce and show any changes over our lifespan makes it a difficult concept to visualize. This is why they do experiments in the lab with organisms that reproduce very quickly (like bacteria). They can watch thousands of cycles in a 'short' time span. We can't do with with humans or dogs in real time.

The field of genetics has also made it possible to see exactly what mutations are happening. It's now possible to compare mutations between species and find common markers. We no longer need fossils to trace ancestry. Now we have two lines of data that point to the same conclusion. If there is a God and the creation story is true, this God sure is messing with us by planting all this data that leads to a vastly different conclusion.

[DanieltheDragon]

I don't see how the process of random mutation plus natural selection over time could have come up with the complexity we have.

So I would argue that I have tried to understand it in tiny steps.

Think about it in best case scenarios. A mutation has to give a survival advantage, it has to be so advantageous that during an extinction event it has to have allowed that creature to survive so that the gene would be dominant. And this has happened millions of times.

I actually think you should show a little mercy on people that find that hard to believe.

This highlights exactly why I think neatras is wrong. There is a lot to unpack for folks who are convinced that evolution is wrong. Including bad teachers growing up and misinformation.

We first need to be empathetic with your situation after all it Is a lot to believe especially coming from a non believer

[Neatras]

Sweet! This is something I can talk about!

I don't see how the process of random mutation plus natural selection over time could have come up with the complexity we have.

Well, that could be because you've been taught that there is so little variance in how mutations affect the genome or how natural selection occurs. I'll try to elaborate: Mutations include the insertion, deletion, substitution, and recombination of the nucleotide bases in a genome. We can, therefore, increase the size of the genome, reduce its size, replace A-T pairs with C-G pairs, or switch the position of base pairs.

Additionally, we've observed instances of gene duplication. Gene duplication occurs as a result of copying errors. For example, while most recombination happens at homologous loci (meaning the DNA will parse where is the best place to cut and attach recombined parts), errors that cause identical chunks of DNA to knit together will leave two entirely identical chunks of DNA in sequence.

So before I go on, let's just take a moment to observe what happens as a result of this alone:

When a gene is duplicated, this means that there is a section of the genome that will be 'interpreted' by transcription and sent off as messenger RNA. Through enough extra steps I'll spare the details, the result is coded into an apparatus that will produce a protein based on the instructions of the DNA chunk. This protein is then used to maintain the host organism by various means. So an extra copy of a gene is pretty useless. It's not gonna affect very much, it'll just be another instance of a protein the body already has. It's redundant.

So why does natural selection keep these guys around? The short answer is it doesn't. That's right, there is no proposed mechanism that says redundancy is favored when the original copy is still functioning. The reason why duplicate genes continue to get passed down is purely due to luck. But don't let that fool you into thinking there's one duplicate gene per generation. The reason any get passed down at all is because duplicate genes are actually really easy to happen on, and sooner or later someone's gonna end up reproducing with one. And this also doesn't say anything about the sheer number of variations of the population's genome that didn't get passed on. What you may have been seeing as a series of lucky coincidences that are so improbable they couldn't have happened, I see a branching structure of potentialities that got trimmed down to size until the last remaining branch ultimately ended up working. Why did that last branch not also get trimmed? Well, that's circumstantial. If the species goes extinct, that's the end of it. We don't take enough time to really talk about how often life fails, because that's difficult to convey while also discussing how life works. We're stuck in a sequence where we talk about living organisms behaving in certain ways, and the idea comes up that they'll always prevail because of biology; this isn't the case. But, setting aside the fact that 99% of all species have gone extinct, we still have to keep talking about how life functions.

In the end, life is resilient. There's been enough modification that now they are functionally able to pass on some offspring with precision so long as the environmental conditions they grew up in stay the same. This isn't the result of some grand design. It's just that when a population exists in a single climate for countless generations, the genes they accumulate will all need to be relevant to that climate.

Genes do not get selected for based on abstract concepts or imagination, though. If a gene "would be good" in a different environment, it may still be selected against because it's destructive to the organism where they are right then.

Plus, we need to be very specific when talking about reproduction. This is the hardest part of the puzzle to put together; even when I learned about evolution, it took me 3 years of pondering before I finally was able to interpret the following in a way that made sense to me.

Reproduction matters because it makes something exist in the future. Living beings are not immortal, so they cannot live forever. Therefore, there is a time in which the organism will die and it will cease existing. When it dies, it no longer performs actions or uses its unique genetic expression to attempt to survive. Death means it is no longer in the 'present'. However, time will still go on. And as the 'present' moves to the 'future', there are still things happening. If the organism had not died, or had passed on its genes to new offspring, then that means it will still continue to perform actions. Reproduction is (likely) a consequence of one fact: reproduction is the only method known to make something with biochemical activity exist in the future. When someone doesn't reproduce, their genes are gone, their uniqueness is gone. If they reproduce, a new iteration interacts with the environment and has the ability to reproduce later.

Even now, I still can't quite convey what I want to. The visualization in my head is one that I've been nurturing ever since I first understood it. But I can't dwell on this.

So I would argue that I have tried to understand it in tiny steps.

Think about it in best case scenarios. A mutation has to give a survival advantage, it has to be so advantageous that during an extinction event it has to have allowed that creature to survive so that the gene would be dominant. And this has happened millions of times.

Not quite! This is the fun part, because natural selection is not a single, senseless 'effect' on a planet. It's not some mathematical sieve through which 99.9999% of all animals will die simply to produce stronger creatures. What we have to do is recognize discrete events.

On a broad scale, the sum total of events in the lives of animals and plants will follow a distribution that appears continuous. This is because humans suck at math and so we simplify progressive graphs. But in the life of a single creature, he will encounter specific predators, be exposed to specific days of harsh elements, specific days of relaxed conditions, and days where food is plentiful or scarce. Similar to how mutation can manifest a variety of changes, the dynamic nature of an ecosystem means that any organism may experience radically different conditions compared to a sibling. But remember, all organisms are entirely unique in their genomic expression. So even if it makes no sense, even if it's not 'fair' in our sense of the word, one of these siblings may end up being luckier than the other in reproducing. How good the genes are doesn't always matter. Which genes are passed down always matters. The distinction is important. Selecting for genes just means that a characteristic of the organism may have played an essential role in making sure it survived to reproduce, something that other organisms aren't lucky enough to do. This is also the reason why genes that are 'good' in other environments don't offer any reproductive advantage to the host.

I've gotten off-topic, even if I want this to work as a functional preamble. What I tried to do was show that:

• The number of ways a genome can be modified is functionally limitless, provided the iterative steps still use the ancestral template.
• Life works as a series of encounters during which survival is a side effect, and reproduction is the only way of making more biochemically active organisms that will repeat the process.

Let's talk a little more about natural selection though. In this post, I discuss how different kinds of natural selection have been observed that lead to unique opportunities. The language is more emphatic and aggressive than what I want to convey here, but the message still carries valuable facts.

[quote=""Hierarchic Transitions in Evolution with Dr. Terrence Deacon"]
[Regarding the rhodopsin example:] And this pattern of redundancy giving rise to synergy can be found all over the tree of life.

"This should be exhibited at all levels, and in fact this becomes a generic way of talking about how it is that higher order levels are generated." -Dr. Terrence Deacon

...

This transition takes place over 4 phases:

1. Duplication - Some function gets copied.
2. Masking - Redundancy masks selection that keeps function consistent.
3. Degeneration - Function breaks down slightly (because of the masking)
4. Compl[e]mentation - New complementary synergies emerge.

[/quote]

In the context of the discussion, this means that in periods where natural selection is not especially harsh to a population, genes that accumulate additional copies are now free to have their copies diversify through means of mutation. When natural selection kicks up a notch (because there are always periods of bounty and strife), and reduces the number of population members, whatever's left over is now the new motley bunch with enough alterations to their genome that they can exhibit entirely novel functions by using precursors.

I understand I haven't done enough, mate. What you asked for was how these listed processes could result in the sheer amount of biodiversity we see. All I've done is talk about a handful of the ways that it can increase in increments. But combine that with the observations of the fossil record, which clearly show cascades of ancestors giving rise to unique populations (and then becoming extinct), and the genetic data that shows relatedness with other species (not to mention ERVs)... Sooner or later, we start to see that there really is a lot of opportunity for life to do amazing things. I don't think you give life enough credit, and so I think you resort to the simple answer of a god putting them on Earth without all the bells and whistles. A small answer for a big question.

Indeed, one could define science as reason’s attempt to compensate for our inability to perceive big numbers... so we have science, to deduce about the gargantuan what we, with our infinitesimal faculties, will never sense. If people fear big numbers, is it any wonder that they fear science as well and turn for solace to the comforting smallness of mysticism?
-Scott Aaronson

I actually think you should show a little mercy on people that find that hard to believe.

Do you see this wall of text above? I have no mercy! There's so much knowledge contained within the field of biology that I can't help but crash it all down the moment I see an opportunity. No mercy for any who open the floodgates! XD

[H.sapiens]

I don't see how the process of random mutation plus natural selection over time could have come up with the complexity we have.

So I would argue that I have tried to understand it in tiny steps.

Think about it in best case scenarios. A mutation has to give a survival advantage, it has to be so advantageous that during an extinction event it has to have allowed that creature to survive so that the gene would be dominant. And this has happened millions of times.

I actually think you should show a little mercy on people that find that hard to believe.

You are requesting that we honor an argument from incredulity? The only rational answer to that is to suggest that you learn a bit more about genetics and evolution.

[Danmark]

I don't see how the process of random mutation plus natural selection over time could have come up with the complexity we have.

So I would argue that I have tried to understand it in tiny steps.

Think about it in best case scenarios. A mutation has to give a survival advantage, it has to be so advantageous that during an extinction event it has to have allowed that creature to survive so that the gene would be dominant. And this has happened millions of times.

I actually think you should show a little mercy on people that find that hard to believe.

You are requesting that we honor an argument from incredulity? The only rational answer to that is to suggest that you learn a bit more about genetics and evolution.

Exactly! Non experts, particularly those who do not want to believe in evolution, keep flaunting their ignorance and their partial understanding as if those are arguments. Most mutations are insignificant in and of themselves. It is the constant accumulation that matters. Also, many of these are piggy backing on a gene, accounting for seemingly nothing... until the time when the change offers some advantage. Even an unhelpful, or even harmful mutation may survive if it does not prevent the organism from reproducing. One of the most common errors I notice in these discussions is the idea from the skeptic that evolution proceeds in some orderly way, always helping the organism 'improve' from the point of view of the skeptic.

Another fact that is overlooked is how many opportunities exist for evolution to do its thing. There are over 2 trillion galaxies in just the observable portion of the cosmos.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... es/504185/

And there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way alone. The universe is unimaginably immense, just as are the opportunities for minute genetic changes in 3.8 billion years.

[H.sapiens]

I don't see how the process of random mutation plus natural selection over time could have come up with the complexity we have.

So I would argue that I have tried to understand it in tiny steps.

Think about it in best case scenarios. A mutation has to give a survival advantage, it has to be so advantageous that during an extinction event it has to have allowed that creature to survive so that the gene would be dominant. And this has happened millions of times.

I actually think you should show a little mercy on people that find that hard to believe.

You are requesting that we honor an argument from incredulity? The only rational answer to that is to suggest that you learn a bit more about genetics and evolution.

Exactly! Non experts, particularly those who do not want to believe in evolution, keep flaunting their ignorance and their partial understanding as if those are arguments. Most mutations are insignificant in and of themselves. It is the constant accumulation that matters. Also, many of these are piggy backing on a gene, accounting for seemingly nothing... until the time when the change offers some advantage. Even an unhelpful, or even harmful mutation may survive if it does not prevent the organism from reproducing. One of the most common errors I notice in these discussions is the idea from the skeptic that evolution proceeds in some orderly way, always helping the organism 'improve' from the point of view of the skeptic.

Another fact that is overlooked is how many opportunities exist for evolution to do its thing. There are over 2 trillion galaxies in just the observable portion of the cosmos.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... es/504185/

And there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way alone. The universe is unimaginably immense, just as are the opportunities for minute genetic changes in 3.8 billion years.

I see no reason to "be merciful" toward people who lack the education to understand the basic concepts, though I am happy to direct them to where such information is available, but I have neither patience nor mercy towards presuppositionists who waste my time.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 17 by H.sapiens]

This is precisely why they don't believe in evolution 100% of them neither have the education or understanding of what evolution is. If you don't want to engage in educating them(albeit this feels like running into walls at times) then there is no point debating them.

What would be nice though is that those who don't believe in evolution have the hubris to admit that they dont know what they are talking about and be open to learning.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 17 by H.sapiens]

This is precisely why they don't believe in evolution 100% of them neither have the education or understanding of what evolution is. If you don't want to engage in educating them(albeit this feels like running into walls at times) then there is no point debating them.

What would be nice though is that those who don't believe in evolution have the hubris to admit that they dont know what they are talking about and be open to learning.

I am happy to help any who are open to learning. Those who are not serve a useful purpose as a practice dummy or as an example by being embarrassed in front of the, as yet, uncommitted or as laughing stock, albeit a sometimes vexing one.

[paarsurrey1]

Why some people reject evolution?

I believe that humans did evolve.
But I have a little question, please.
What existed before the "evolution" and who kicked it off, please?
Regards