Why Are the Fundies So Averse to Accepting Human Evolution?

Having had over a dozen debates with creationists and ID fundamentalists, I'm still at a loss as to why they so vehemently reject human evolution. Even when presented with the hardest evidence, they tend to bury their heads in the sand like ostriches. It's as if their heads are ready to explode.  What gives with them?

My own theory is they suffer from what I call grandiosity syndrome, the belief in human exceptionalism -and that humans are somehow "fallen angels" as opposed to being risen apes. But apes these people don't want to be. NO, they aspire to sublime, supernatural greatness - which no ape will ever attain. Thus, when they look at an ape, or ape ancestor face in relation to a human, they go batshit crazy in denial, because they can't handle the similarities.

"No, dammit! That ain't me! I am special! I got a soul, and free will and all that, you damned commie atheist!"

But the hard facts belie their desperate protestations, because in the end, they really are risen apes! One of the best evidences for this is at the micro-biological level.  This is from the DNA (genomic) sequencing of the human and chimpanzee which discloses the remarkable fact that BOTH have the exact SAME cytochrome –c protein sequence! If evolution is false we’d expect the human and chimp cytochrome-c sequences to vary dramatically given that it exhibits 10^93 variations in functionality with other organisms. That is, 10 followed by ninety three zeros!

Yet the fundies either reject or refuse to process this data! They absolutely want no ape cousins!

Then there the fact is we have actual photographic evidence assembled for the telomeric fusion of the ape 2p and 2q chromosomes to become the single ‘2’ chromosome in humans. In other words, prima facie evidence of a common ancestor. (See, e.g.: Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy')

People who know next to zippo about Darwinian evolution (they haven’t even read Darwin’s Origin of Species) constantly complain about perceived “problems with evolution” but most of these are McGuffins, red herrings, straw men or false issues.  You can generally quickly tell their specious basis on account of the near hysteria with which they're interjected into debates.


A choice one is the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

By “micro-evolution” we mean minute evolutionary change, involving a small proportion of DNA. For example, as observed in changes in haemoglobins, histo-compatability antigens, and biochemical environmental adaptations (e.g. formation of blood chemicals which confer some form of resistance to environmental toxins or agents). The main point to bear in mind is that micro-evolution, whatever the changes, still preserves species' mating ability - whereas macroevolution generally does not.

 

Macroevolution, by contrast, entails a proportionately large change in the DNA underlying it that probably reflects ongoing natural selection, over significant time. For example, the change from a cold-blooded dinosaur to a warm-blooded dinosaur that’s a precursor of modern birds would be a case of macroevolution. Similarly, the change from an ape-human ancestor to Homo sapiens (by telomeric fusion of the 2p and 2q chromosomes to the ‘2’ chromosome in humans) would be a case of macroevolution, despite the fact the evidence is available at the chromosomal level.

 

 Thus far we have assembled more than 29+ evidences for macro-evolution all of which were originally set out in the context of falsifiable hypotheses, and then accepted because they passed those observational tests. See more at:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Another key fundie-creationist dysfunction,  showing his lack of education,  is mixing up the origin of life (or the origin of the cosmos) with evolution. The origin of life falls under the theory of abiogenesis :i.e.  the theory of the original inception of life, as opposed to its later evolution by natural selection. The origin of the universe, meanwhile, falls under the theory of cosmogenesis.- or how the cosmos originated, e.g. in the Big Bang.  If the fundie can't tell either of these theorie from Darwinian evolution - how can anything else he writes be trusted?  He really isn't fit to be in a serious debate, but perhaps he can engage in discussion concerning which  water colors a Kindergartner might use!


Then there is the old complaint concerning "gaps in the fossil record". As if a few transitional layer gaps can refute an entire theory.  But as Richard Dawkins has put it ( 'The Blind Watchmaker’, p. 240):

“The reason that the transition from ancestral species to descendant species appears to be jerky is simply that, when we look at a series of fossils from any one place, we are probably not looking at an evolutionary event at all, but a migrational event. The arrival of a new species from another geographical area
”

I mean, after all, there’s no law that commands all species remain fixed in one place their entire lives! Even today, as water holes dry up or food reserves dip, African animals like Wildebeest, antelope and others will migrate to new areas in search of resources to support them. 

Not mentioned by Dawkins is how many other ‘holes” or gaps may have been created by virtue of tectonic plates (which make up the Earth’s crust) slipping or crushing key fossils in distinct layers. Obviously, if such tectonic traversal displaced a fossil layer, then it likely won’t be found when it may well have harbored intermediate forms.

Another question from the perpetually clueless:


If Evolution’s true then why don’t we see apes evolving into humans?

This nonsense propagates because they purveyors fail to recognize that humans, apes and monkeys are all distant cousins, as opposed to species in the same SINGLE evolutionary path. Humans don’t come from apes but from a common ancestor that was neither ape nor human in the distant past. Also, it overlooks the algorithmic branching basis of evolution, see e.g. http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/04/clearing-air-on-missing-links.html

Thus, multiple evolutionary offshoots (as shown above) confirm no (single) primate evolution is based on a single path. Thus in the past seven million years there have evolved multiple hominid species including Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and Homo Neanderthalis- all of which went extinct along the way- except modern humans or Homo sapiens. Meanwhile the idea of current apes evolving to humans totally turns this algorithmic-convergence on its head, and proposes a singly determined evolutionary path!

 

Another widely disseminated but misbegotten and misinformed trope:

 

Evolutionists claim the process occurs by random chance

Not so. Natural selection is not “random” nor does it operate by “chance”. What happens is that once a particular mutation is stabilized, then natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes (to enhance better adaptation). Meanwhile, "chance" would be like me sitting a monkey down in front of a type writer or computer keyboard and hoping there is some "chance" it will type out at least one page of coherent script. But since a monkey will likely not recognize any key - or even if it does, then make a connection to words, or how to compose them into articulated thoughts - this isn't likely. It all rests on CHANCE!


Meanwhile, natural selection rests on preferred steps each of which consolidate former steps while advancing the adaptation. Thus, the eye evolved from a single light sensitive spot in a cell to the complex organ we behold today not by chance but rather by thousands of intermediate steps – each preserved because they assured better adaptation if incorporated, and hence a better eye. Many of these steps can still be observed today in simpler organisms.

Richard Dawkins perhaps put it best (op. cit.):


"What natural selection does is to consolidate particular random mutations into a more stable, adaptive adjustment – governed by deterministic factors and inputs. Thus, that while the selected trait often appears at random, its preservation in the gene structure cannot be relegated to randomness”

 

What does all this show? That most of the alleged "problems of evolution" are confections or simple red herrings which exist only in the minds of those who insist on seeing problems - perhaps because "problems" with evolution assuage some doubts that their good Book gives them the whole truth.

But I still suspect the core problem is that those who reject human evolution, refuse to see humans in any biological fellowship with the likes of the chimp  - despite the fact we share 98% of the same DNA and exhibit the same  cytochrome –c  protein sequence. So literally, we are "brothers" under the fur, or skin...as the case may be.

Human exceptionalism is unwarranted until such time we can show ourselves to be absolutely above the chimp in every way - including making war and killing our fellows. But don't hold your breath!

Exploding Myths to do with Evolution (1)

Bashing assorted myths on evolution, especially the human version, is like playing 'whack-a-mole'. This is on account of the fact ignorant creationists have engineered whole-cloth lies and deceptions about it. In the process, they've roped in millions to believe their insane nonsense of 'Adam & Eve', a 6,000 yr.-old Earth etc. merits being taught alongside evolution. It doesn't: it merits being put into the nearest dumpster with their other swill.

So in this and the next part I want to highlight some of the most common myths perpetrated about Darwinian evolution. In many respects I already covered one several blogs ago, that was concerning the "missing link". So now we will look at some others.

1. If Evolution’s true then why don’t we see apes evolving into humans?

This myth errs in not recognizing that humans, apes and monkeys are all distant cousins, as opposed to species in the same SINGLE evolutionary path. Humans don’t come from apes but from a common ancestor that was neither ape nor human in the distant past. Also, it overlooks the algorithmic branching basis of evolution, see e.g. http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/04/clearing-air-on-missing-links.html

Thus, multiple evolutionary offshoots (as shown above) confirm no (single) primate evolution is based on a single path. Thus in the past seven million years there have evolved multiple hominid species including Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and Homo Neanderthalis- all of which went extinct along the way- except modern humans or Homo sapiens. Meanwhile the idea of current apes evolving to humans totally turns this algorithmic-convergence on its head, and proposes a singly determined evolutionary path!

Less well known is the crucial role that dentition analysis and tool making play in sorting the fossils of prehistoric humans. For example, one of the first questions the investigator will ask is whether a given jaw and teeth found in it, can accommodate flesh eating. For some fortunate cases, this is also answered by the fossils found in the vicinity of the hominid ones. For example, in the case of one Au. garhi fossil (see image of this hominid) an antelope jawbone was found nearby and on it ancient cut marks disclosing its tongue had been sliced out using a stone tool. Radio-nuclide dating of both fossils traced them to the same time.

Obviously, genetic testing is the optimum or gold standard. In one of the most powerful ever demonstrations of the validity of human evolution, Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy', showed that the human chromosome designated '2' was the result of the telomeric fusion of the two ape chromosomes, 2p and 2q. The effect also saw the reduction from 24 chromosome pairs in apes, to 23 pairs in humans. In other words, the duo of ape chromosomes (2p and 2q) can be considered prima facie evidence that humans and apes share a common descent.


2. No one’s ever actually seen evolution occur!


In fact, we do observe evolution happening especially with organisms (e.g. fruit flies, viruses, bacteria) that possess short reproductive cycles. The problem arises because creationists treat micro-evolution disparately from macro-evolution. Because they don't regard the former as part of a continuum leading to the latter, they consider "macro-evolution" the only genuine form. (By “micro-evolution” we mean minute evolutionary change, involving a small proportion of DNA. For example, the emergence of an orange-eyed fruit fly (drosophilia melanogaster) after 20 generations would demonstrate microevolution.)


Macro-evolution entails a proportionately large change in the DNA underlying it that probably reflects ongoing natural selection, over significant time. For example, the change from a cold-blooded dinosaur to a warm-blooded dinosaur that’s a precursor of modern birds would be a case of macroevolution.

The point missed by the Creationists (or perhaps they never processed it in the first place) is that it is hundreds (or thousands) of micro-evolution transitional components that engender macroevolution, whereas creationists think they are two totally distinct aspects that are unrelated. Once one accepts the two are integrated into one interwoven process then one can accept that we DO see evolution actually occurring as when fruit flies have altered their wing shape or eye color after 20 generations!

Once more, the key aspect that shows micro-evolution is real evolution is the fact that gene frequencies are observed to change (along with the fitness) as time goes on. Thus, it is not simply like "breeding cattle" or different species of dogs (for which many varieties may actually see the gene frequency alter in negative directions, with fitness reduced).

To fix ideas: gene frequencies help determine the success (and progress)  of natural selection. In natural selection there is a genetic "favoritism", as it were, for certain species' traits or characteristics to be passed on or selected out of a group of competing traits in the gene pool. In more technical terms, preferential alleles appear by virtue of their relative increase in gene frequency.

Two quantitative measures for success of natural selection are the fitness (w) and the selective value (s): These can be measured on either absolute or relative scales, but are related algebraically on the latter by:


w = 1 – s, or s = 1 – w


As an illustration, consider a cockroach species (Blattella germanica) with allele D, where D denotes resistance to the pesticide dieldrin, and d denotes non-resistance. In the population after some defined time, let three genotypes be exhibited in the population: DD, Dd and dd.  Now, on average over time let each dd and Dd individual produce one offspring, and each DD produce two. These average numbers can be used to indicate the genotype’s absolute fitness and to project the changes in gene frequency over succeeding generations. The relative fitness (w) is meanwhile given by:   w = 1 for DD

w = 0.5 for Dd

w = 0.5 for dd

The selection values, or relative measures of the reduction of fitness for each genotype, are given respectively by:


s = 1 – 1 = 0 for DD

s = 1 – 0.5 = 0.5 for Dd

s = 1 – 0.5 = 0.5 for dd

As we expect, the dieldrin-resistant genotype displays zero reduction in fitness, and hence maximum survival rate. By contrast the d allele can be regarded as ‘deleterious’. Indeed, it can be shown that over successive generations of roaches, the gene frequency (of d) will decrease by:

D q= -spq²/(1 - sq²)

Here p is the frequency of the favored allele, and q the frequency of the disadvantaged (‘deleterious’) allele. Let’s say at a particular time a gene frequency ‘snapshot’ of the cockroach population under study yields: p(D) = 0.60, q(d) = 0.40, i.e. the favored allele D is reproducing at the ratio 3:2 relative to the disadvantaged one, d. Then one can work out how the alleles' frequencies vary over multiple generations. Of course, since the fundies - most of them- can't do simple algebra, this will be beyond them ....so they will never accept it!


3) Evolutionists claim the process occurs by random chance.

Not so. Natural selection is not “random” nor does it operate by “chance”. What happens is that once a particular mutation is stabilized, then natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes (to enhance better adaptation). Meanwhile, "chance" would be like me sitting a monkey down in front of a type writer or computer keyboard and hoping there is some "chance" it will type out at least one page of coherent script. But since a monkey will likely not recognize any key - or even if it does, then make a connection to words, or how to compose them into articulated thoughts - this isn't likely. It all rests on CHANCE!


Meanwhile, natural selection rests on preferred steps each of which consolidate former steps while advancing the adaptation. Thus, the eye evolved from a single light sensitive spot in a cell to the complex organ we behold today not by chance but rather by thousands of intermediate steps – each preserved because they assured better adaptation if incorporated, and hence a better eye. Many of these steps can still be observed today in simpler organisms.


Richard Dawkins perhaps put it best:


"What natural selection does is to consolidate particular random mutations into a more stable, adaptive adjustment – governed by deterministic factors and inputs. Thus, that while the selected trait often appears at random, its preservation in the gene structure cannot be relegated to randomness”


Again, his distinction between deterministic and random factors and inputs is perhaps too subtle for creationists and their ilk to comprehend. After all, most have never taken even a high school biology course, far less a college level one.


4) The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution


This myth commits at least two fundamental errors:a) The error which assumes that evolution means more primitive organisms develop into more complex or organized ones, and, b) The error that the second law (because it refers to increasing disorder or "entropy") applies to all living things- hence it is impossible they can "evolve" to more orderly, organized forms.

Consider (a) first: At no point and no place do evolutionists claim that more organized forms are the inevitable manifestation of natural selection and adaptation, and represent evolutionary success.What evolution states,which any high school biology student learns, is that the species which survive best are the most well adapted to their environment.

Thus, the humble cockroach beats just about all other species on Earth for evolutionary success given it's been around for 150 million years. Humans, though much more complex and organized than cockroaches, have only been around in their modern form for barely 1.5 million years, if that. Humans, up to now, have enjoyed  barely 1/100 th the evolutionary success of the cockroach, measured in time!

Now, as to (b), this is a common error of those who've never taken advanced physics, but just read Googled excerpts. It's basically a direct result of misinterpretation of the 2nd law, something I often see from those who've never taken a serious physics course. Strictly speaking,  the law states:

Entropy (the state of disorder) will tend to increase over time in any closed system

This is generall expressed in statistical mechanics terms as:

s = log g

Where 'g' denotes the number of accessible states. In other words, in a closed system we will expect the probability of increasing entropy and that means increasing accessible states.  This was discussed at length when we looked at assorted spin systems (see the series on 'Order and disorder' earlier this month) and noted that higher entropy - as in a state with low excess spin- corresponds to the most probable state. Say a  closed magnetic spin system S(2), has 10 spin ups while S(1) has five, then S(2) has a much higher degree of order (less entropy) than the system S(1). 


The part about closed systems is very crucial since it is exactly the part that the creationist-ID crowd omits, which renders their complaints using the 2nd law non-starters. The reason is that neither the Earth nor its biological systems are "closed" systems, hence do not exhibit constantly increasing disorder. The Earth, for example, receives a constant input of radiant energy from the Sun - quantified as some 1360 joules per square meter per second. Plants on the Earth are likewise OPEN to solar energy, and receive it and then use it in the process of photo-synthesis.


Since Earth is an open-dissipative system then at any given time for any subsystem, entropy may decrease and order increase, thus life may evolve without violating any natural laws.


Bottom line: so long as the Sun is radiating its energy, life can continue thriving and evolving. (Thus, more highly organized organisms such as humans have had the capacity to emerge, by dint of this input energy which they've been able to consume and retain - if only briefly).