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]

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?

Yes, I agree that if it is logical and all the premises are true, then it leads to a true conclusion.

"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

"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.

No, I realize that micro and macro are not two separate processes. I understand that the definition of macro is a series of micros.

However, interestingly, the article gives an example of macro without micro.

Although the vast majority of speciation occurs via microevolution resulting in macroevolution, it is possible to skip the micro and create new species out of the blue. Although seemingly outlandish and admittedly rare, this has happened before.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Microevol ... oevolution

So, here is an evolutionary claim that macro can happen without micro.

it is clear that accepting microevolution automatically means accepting macroevolution.

If one is a naturalist, then there is no other option than to accept macro if micro is true. However, if one is not a naturalist, then it is not the only option.

[H.sapiens]

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

There are no "facts" in science, only likelihoods. Multiple deductions from independent fields raise a deduction to a virtual certainty. With respect to the terms,
microevolution and macroevolution, they were developed in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Filipchenko, who was an orthogenesist who did not agree with natural selection. That was clearly stated in the link you provided. Do you not read your links or do you just not understand what they say?

[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

There are no "facts" in science, only likelihoods. Multiple deductions from independent fields raise a deduction to a virtual certainty.

I agree. We have a shorthand term for "virtual certainties."
We call them "facts," while acknowledging nothing we know is absolute and knowledge is not static.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 247 by otseng]

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."

While that is true, it does not affect the fact that different species and, in particular, different genera recognisably have different DNA. Explanations of evolution invariably have to come down to a discussion of changes in the DNA of organisms, not just genes switching on and off.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 248 by Danmark]

I've linked to this Nilsson and Pelger paper before:

http://redwood.berkeley.edu/bruno/anima ... lution.pdf

and it has some estimates for eye evolution time frames (from eye patch to full blown eyes) and number of generations required. The whole process can happen relatively quickly according to their analysis.

[otseng]

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?

[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

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

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.

[otseng]

There are no "facts" in science, only likelihoods.

I agree. But, this is contrary to Dan's statement, "All this data points to and reinforces the same thing, the FACT of evolution."

With respect to the terms, microevolution and macroevolution, they were developed in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Filipchenko, who was an orthogenesist who did not agree with natural selection. That was clearly stated in the link you provided. Do you not read your links or do you just not understand what they say?

Here is what the article says:

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.

I never said he believed in natural selection. I said he was an evolutionist, which is clearly stated in the article.

[benchwarmer]

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?

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.

The other point here is that not all eyes are exactly the same. Some species see way better at night, others see different wavelengths of light better (or at all), etc. 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.

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.

We know evolution happens. 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. Even if there is a god, clearly evolution was part of the plan. IMHO, the only question theists should really be asking at this point is why god decided to include evolution in the plan. Clearly it's allowing things to change radically from the original planned 'perfection'. If theists don't like evolution, an observed phenomenon, they should start petitioning their favorite deity about the matter.

[otseng]

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.

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.

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".

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.