Why do Creationists deny Evolution in face of tons of evidence supporting it?

[Meyer6]

@Voyager

To quibble a bit, you expressed another misconception. Yes, evolution occurs over long periods of time, but it also occurs over quite short periods of time. In fact, evolution is happening every time a predator takes out some prey. But, to go beyond what creationists accept, speciation can happen with a human lifetime. Ancient primates evolving into man takes a long time, but two separated populations of rats speciating does not.

Yeah, I know evolution can occur quickly - that’s why I pointed out that it can be directly observed in the field. I’ve seen it myself in the field, and manipulated the process in the lab, so believe me, I have no misconception about the so-called microevolution. And while Der Trihs is right that there is no actual divide between micro- and macro- evolution, the fact remains that the creationists (and to some extent scientists too) have been very successful at separating the two in the minds of the public. That has allowed many to dismiss evolution based on their inability to understand the course of evolution over huge time spans, while ignoring rapid change because ‘it’s a whole different thing’.

As for the rats, we can see allele frequencies change in populations quite easily. We can also see changes in the appearance and behaviour over generations. But whether or not we see true speciation is less clear. It depends what definition you use - Biological Species Concept? When do you declare reproductive isolation? What about hybridization - some hybrids can be fertile? Are you a lumper or a splitter when it comes to naming species?

Now all of that is not to say we’re not seeing change, or not proving evolution true. But we’re certainly not seeing the clear ‘turning monkeys into humans’ type of evolution that creationists picture evolution as. That’s the picture they’re sneering at, and unfortunately that’s the kind of process we can’t observe directly. No amount of ‘pepper moths during the Industrial Revolution’ examples are going to be dramatic enough to shake their faith in intelligent design.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Der_Trihs

There is no “micro and macro thing” except inside the heads of the creationists. Calling something “microevolution” is just their way of denying evolution when it’s happening right in front of them.

That’s like saying there’s no micro and macro in economics, or that there’s no such thing as modern history versus ancient history.

I doubt it. What mystery are you talking about?

Did Neandertals and Cro Magnons mate and breed? Are they sub species or separate species?

Where did humans originate?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CitizenPained

That’s like saying there’s no micro and macro in economics, or that there’s no such thing as modern history versus ancient history.

“Macro” evolution is just a whole bunch of “micro.” It’s an artificial division. Enough micro happens and you get speciation. There is no barrier which stops speciation. Conceding to microevolution but objecting to macro is like say, "yes, I believe hair can grow a half inch, but not six inches. It’s all the same thing.

Did Neandertals and Cro Magnons mate and breed?

Maybe.

Are they sub species or separate species?

Separate. Homo sapiens is not subspeciated.

Where did humans originate?

Africa.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@tomndebb

While there is overwhelming evidence for evolution to be an ongoing process in nature, that evidence requires a certain level of education simply to understand the process. The concept of random mutations being selected by environmental pressures is not complex, but an understanding that such “accidents” could accumulate in ways that lead to all the wondrous organisms in the world is not intuitive. So many people who look at eyes, the spining flagella of certain bacteria, the ways in which certain animals are symbiotic, and dozens (hundreds?) of other phenomena simply cannot understand how any of them could have evolved. At that point, the education is no longer relevant, because they feel that there is no way that evolution could have occurred. It simply feels wrong to them.

I basically agree. Once you get your mind around it, the process becomes clear, but it’s not like observing plant growth of the movement of tides. Evolution cannot be experienced first-hand (mostly), it is a thought process rather than experimental.
The fact that random mutations actually add up and produce things like super-fast-beating heart of a hummingbird is not crystal clear; it is true, but not clear.

Also, aside from the US most conservative Christians have no problem at all with it.

Having said that, it is therefore unfair to treat people like they are stupid or deranged. Evolution plays absolutely no direct part in the lives of 99.763% of us. Don’t tell me “without evolution your hands wouldn’t …” or stuff like that. I don’t see evolution working in me.

[Voyager]

@Meyer6

Yeah, I know evolution can occur quickly - that’s why I pointed out that it can be directly observed in the field. I’ve seen it myself in the field, and manipulated the process in the lab, so believe me, I have no misconception about the so-called microevolution. And while Der Trihs is right that there is no actual divide between micro- and macro- evolution, the fact remains that the creationists (and to some extent scientists too) have been very successful at separating the two in the minds of the public. That has allowed many to dismiss evolution based on their inability to understand the course of evolution over huge time spans, while ignoring rapid change because ‘it’s a whole different thing’.

Sorry for doubting your expertise. The importance of speciation examples, like those in talk.origins, is that they show that “macroevolution” happens - under the common definition of creationists. But it is very hard to pin them down on what this concept means, which is why I always ask them for definitions as the first thing. They either come through with absurdities - like cats turning into dogs - or a definition which can be shown to occur. Usually they don’t respond. Sometimes they try to define “kinds” as in Noah as whatever groups you can’t show being related. I haven’t noted the long time frames as being a problem. The biggest misconception is that they don’t get that evolution occurs from the past into the present and not across existing species. That is where the “if we evolved from monkeys, how come monkeys are still around” meme comes from.

As for the rats, we can see allele frequencies change in populations quite easily. We can also see changes in the appearance and behaviour over generations. But whether or not we see true speciation is less clear. It depends what definition you use - Biological Species Concept? When do you declare reproductive isolation? What about hybridization - some hybrids can be fertile? Are you a lumper or a splitter when it comes to naming species?

The rat example comes from the Times, and I’m partial to it because my wife ordered her rats from these people when she was in grad school and performing terrible experiments upon them. I’m not knowledgeable enough to be either a lumper or a splitter. I think the biggest issue is running out of Latin. I think these rats had gone past the fertile hybrid stage. I think they found the difference that caused the speciation but my memory is a bit fuzzy on it, and I once searched for the article without success. It wasn’t anything earth shattering, but interesting because it happened in a population that many biologists are very familiar with.

Now all of that is not to say we’re not seeing change, or not proving evolution true. But we’re certainly not seeing the clear ‘turning monkeys into humans’ type of evolution that creationists picture evolution as. That’s the picture they’re sneering at, and unfortunately that’s the kind of process we can’t observe directly. No amount of ‘pepper moths during the Industrial Revolution’ examples are going to be dramatic enough to shake their faith in intelligent design.

The moth example is particularly unfortunate because, if I understand it correctly, it is a shift in allele frequency and not a case of speciation at all, and thus would be accepted by creationists as falling into what is possible.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

“Macro” evolution is just a whole bunch of “micro.” It’s an artificial division. Enough micro happens and you get speciation. There is no barrier which stops speciation. Conceding to microevolution but objecting to macro is like say, "yes, I believe hair can grow a half inch, but not six inches. It’s all the same thing.

Evolution is evolution. History is history. Economics is economics. Medicine is medicine. Yet..if it were so clear-cut, we wouldn’t have specialists.

Macro economics can’t happen without micro economics. But not all areas of economics are on some linear continuum.

The term “microevolution” is not arbitrary and has only recently been hijacked (assuming that’s what you meant by artificial). It’s meaning has changed somewhat, but consider the context:

A more practical definition of the term describes it as changes occurring on geological time scales, in contrast to microevolution, which occurs on the timescale of human lifetimes.[6] This definition reflects the spectrum between micro- and macro-evolution, whilst leaving a clear difference between the terms: because the geological record rarely has a resolution better than 10,000 years, and humans rarely live longer than 100 years, “meso-evolution” is never observed.

(snip)

Hence, use of the term “macroevolution” is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is “properly” neo-Darwinian or not.[5]
[7]

Clearly, the last statement is one of opinion, but you can believe in allele changes and not believe in Darwinian theory. The population of natural blondes may die out in 100 years, but that doesn’t mean we’re a new species. This is what I mean by the “macro v. micro” thing.

Time is not arbitrary. Time is what humans can wrap their minds around. That’s why micro-evolution is usually at or below the species level. There is a separation by virtue of linguistics and categorization. It doesn’t mean that one is a different kind of science.

I I don’t agree with Creationists, but it doesn’t mean I claim “microevolution” doesn’t exist. I understand if you want do debate framing, but don’t discredit one’s personal lexicon entirely.

Maybe.

Separate. Homo sapiens is not subspeciated.

So Cro Magnon is early modern man, and neandertal is a separate species?

How about a sub species?

Africa.

Is that where we came from?

(:

[Farmer_Jane]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

There is no barrier which stops speciation.

Can you expand on that? Or is that a blanket statement that nothing stops speciation, period?

[Farmer_Jane]

@Voyager

The biggest misconception is that they don’t get that evolution occurs from the past into the present and not across existing species. That is where the “if we evolved from monkeys, how come monkeys are still around” meme comes from.

Always?

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@CitizenPained

Can you expand on that? Or is that a blanket statement that nothing stops speciation, period?

There is no KNOWN barrier. If you have one, cite it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CitizenPained

Evolution is evolution. History is history. Economics is economics. Medicine is medicine. Yet..if it were so clear-cut, we wouldn’t have specialists.

Macro economics can’t happen without micro economics. But not all areas of economics are on some linear continuum.

The term “microevolution” is not arbitrary and has only recently been hijacked (assuming that’s what you meant by artificial). It’s meaning has changed somewhat, but consider the context:

Clearly, the last statement is one of opinion, but you can believe in allele changes and not believe in Darwinian theory. The population of natural blondes may die out in 100 years, but that doesn’t mean we’re a new species. This is what I mean by the “macro v. micro” thing.

Time is not arbitrary. Time is what humans can wrap their minds around. That’s why micro-evolution is usually at or below the species level. There is a separation by virtue of linguistics and categorization. It doesn’t mean that one is a different kind of science.

I I don’t agree with Creationists, but it doesn’t mean I claim “microevolution” doesn’t exist. I understand if you want do debate framing, but don’t discredit one’s personal lexicon entirely.

[Sigh]

I didn’t say microevolution doesn’t exist. I’m saying that mechanically it’s not different from macro. As your cite says, it’s only a matter of time. Macro is what happens when micro happens for a really long time. It’s not a different phenomenon, its the same phenomenon looked at on a wider scale. What is arbitrary is to say that mocroeveolution can only occure for a short amount of time, or to a certain degree of change before something stops it. Nothing stops it.

So Cro Magnon is early modern man, and neandertal is a separate species?

Yes. You linked to a page about a genus, not a species.

How about a sub species?

No. Separate species.

Is that where we came from?

Yep.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CitizenPained

Can you expand on that? Or is that a blanket statement that nothing stops speciation, period?

Nothing genetic. I suppose extinction events could stop it, but as long as you have heredity, mutation and a sorting mechanism (like natural selection), you will have adaptation and speciation. What do you imagine would stop it? Do you understand how incremental it is? There are no noticibly big changes from generation to generation, but over time, the changes mount up and you get something different.

The development of languages is a good example. No one ever notices while it’s happening, but then you look back and you can’t even read Old English anymore, and that’s just micro-evolution. How is your Indo-European lately?

[vivalostwages]

@PBear42

As for why Creationists (especially YECs) keep harping on teaching their model in public schools, my sense is similar to Tom’s but a little different. The motivation, I think, is this. In Sunday School, they teach their little ones the Earth was created by God 6000 years ago. Then, an authority figure in school tells them this belief is wrong. Frankly, I think it’s perfectly understandable that they find this threatening. It’s almost a reverse-establishment of religion (or at least YEC). It’s all very well for us to say “dem’s the facts, so just deal with it,” but one shouldn’t be surprised if they decline to see it that way. QM and other science don’t provoke the same response because they don’t pose the same challenge.

Consider an example of something similar. American Indians have begun to resist genetic testing, in part, because scientists use the data to construct migration theories which conflict with the Indian’s own myths of creation in place. Here, because of the backdrop of genocide and cultural discrimination, folks tend to be more sympathetic, although the same “dem’s the facts” rationale applies. Of course genetic testing is a little different because it requires consent, but that goes to why the objection succeeds, not whether it’s valid.

Which isn’t to say I think we should be teaching creationism in schools, or teaching the controversy (in scientific terms, there isn’t one). But I do think it’s unfair to assert Creationists are being stoopid when they get exercised about the issue. They’ve got a real problem. Bearing in mind it’s inerrancy, not evolution as such, that YECs care about.

My nieces went to a religious high school as well as church. I clearly recall the younger one proclaiming loudly how inaccurate radiocarbon dating is. No doubt, she heard this in one of her classes.

Is that sort of dating even done anymore? I thought I heard that there were better dating methods now.

[vivalostwages]

Just remembered something my very religious brother once said in regard to a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode or scene that dealt with evolution in some way: “That show’s not going to survive if they keep talking about evolution.”

It survived for seven years.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@CitizenPained

Did Neandertals and Cro Magnons mate and breed? Are they sub species or separate species?

Species is an artificial idea, a tool humans use to rationalize critters into discrete groups. Natures works in spectrums that seldom have a definite edges.

Some interesting reading is Ring Species which shows this.

Further:
Polar Bear evolution

Hecht (in Chaline, 1983) describes polar bear evolution: the first “polar bear”, Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear dimensions and brown bear teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed polar-bear-type teeth.

Kurten (1976) describes bear transitions: “From the early Ursus minimus of 5 million years ago to the late Pleistocene cave bear, there is a perfectly complete evolutionary sequence without any real gaps. The transition is slow and gradual throughout, and it is quite difficult to say where one species ends and the next begins. Where should we draw the boundary between U. minimus and U. etruscus, or between U. savini and U. spelaeus? The history of the cave bear becomes a demonstration of evolution, not as a hypothesis or theory but as a simple fact of record.” He adds, "In this respect the cave bear’s history is far from unique.

Where did humans originate?

From very human like ancestors, who came from not quite but still very human like ancestors and so fourth back to the ancestral Bandersnatch food.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@vivalostwages

My nieces went to a religious high school as well as church. I clearly recall the younger one proclaiming loudly how inaccurate radiocarbon dating is. No doubt, she heard this in one of her classes.

Is that sort of dating even done anymore? I thought I heard that there were better dating methods now.

AFAIK, yes, carbon-14 dating is still done, for the good reason that it works. It has issues, which seem to be fairly well understood, and it’s not particularly useful for dates roughly later than 60,000 years. In any case, C-14 dating can be independently verified using other means like dendrochronology, which goes back - fairly indisputably at least 10,000 years. There are other dating methods based on radioactive decay that go back way further than C-14.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

C-14 is on;y one kind of radiometric dating. It’s actually true that it’s not exact, but it gives a reliable range. It has a “margin of error,” so to speak, but it’s within reliable parameters.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

There is no KNOWN barrier. If you have one, cite it.

Natural disasters?

Acts of man?

Disease?

Geography?

Domestication?

Do you think man will diverge and another species will develop somewhere?

[Farmer_Jane]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

[Sigh]

I didn’t say microevolution doesn’t exist. I’m saying that mechanically it’s not different from macro. As your cite says, it’s only a matter of time. Macro is what happens when micro happens for a really long time. It’s not a different phenomenon, its the same phenomenon looked at on a wider scale. What is arbitrary is to say that mocroeveolution can only occure for a short amount of time, or to a certain degree of change before something stops it. Nothing stops it.

Please note that you quoted me when I was responding to the assertion by Dher This that there was no macro v micro thing. There is a distinction, just like there’s a distinction between a minute, an hour, a lunar cycle, a solar cycle, etc.

But when the word “evolution” has some serious connotations, then, well, don’t knock it when people try to distinguish one idea from another.

also:your example of hair growing was a poor one…

If you quote me and speak in (what I assume to be?) DT’s defense, then I may think you have his position. Even if not, I don’t see why you would try to argue or correct me? The only thing I pointed out was his use of semantics. Any good creationist would hop on that one.

I clearly stated in my response to you that I understood the two concepts and I see how it’s been hijacked, but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I assumed since you quoted me (and are still trying to school me on evolution), you disagree with me. If you disagree with me, I’ll argue my points. If you don’t disagree with me, then what was your point in trying to edjumacate me?

Yes. You linked to a page about a genus, not a species.

Yes…but there was a big chart that had the species listed underneath to show that neandertal and early modern man/“human” were

No. Separate species.

classified as separate species, but as Tao pointed out, it gets a little messy, since the next link suggested that Neandertals may be a sub-species of Homo Erectus. Jury is out on that one, but they probably did mate and any good Creationist can start to argue about the changing nature of science.

Trust me, you can be a creationist and not believe that religious doctrine is all to be taken literally. I know Creationists who think that God created the world and let it loose from there.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The development of languages is a good example. No one ever notices while it’s happening, but then you look back and you can’t even read Old English anymore, and that’s just micro-evolution. How is your Indo-European lately?

Well, people notice and bitch about it, but it’s not the top of the news on CNN, yanno?

[Farmer_Jane]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

Species is an artificial idea, a tool humans use to rationalize critters into discrete groups. Natures works in spectrums that seldom have a definite edges.

I’m pretty sure St. Paul didn’t write “Origin of the Species”.

Time, marriage, shortness, law, psychology, clothing, intelligence, beauty, and 99 per cent of our daily lives are artificial. Just because something is artificial doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or cannot be. (: