Why do people deny evolution?

The core of current evolutionary theory was forged in the 1930s and 1940s. It combined natural selection, genetics and other fields into a consensus about how evolution occurs. This ‘modern synthesis’ allowed the evolutionary process to be described mathematically as frequencies of genetic variants in a population change over time — as, for instance, in the spread of genetic resistance to the myxoma virus in rabbits....standard evolutionary theory (SET) largely retains the same assumptions as the original modern synthesis, which continues to channel how people think about evolution. The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation...

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.

...they contend that four phenomena are important evolutionary processes: phenotypic plasticity, niche construction, inclusive inheritance and developmental bias. We could not agree more. We study them ourselves....The prominence that these four phenomena command in the discourse of contemporary evolutionary theory reflects their proven explanatory power, not a lack of attention.

We invite Laland and colleagues to join us in a more expansive extension, rather than imagining divisions that do not exist. We appreciate their ideas as an important part of what evolutionary theory might become in the future. We, too, want an extended evolutionary synthesis, but for us, these words are lowercase because this is how our field has always advanced. The best way to elevate the prominence of genuinely interesting phenomena such as phenotypic plasticity, inclusive inheritance, niche construction and developmental bias (and many, many others) is to strengthen the evidence for their importance.

The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly....Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.

If you wish to reject natural selection, show me your evidence,

Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create ... neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism...I believed it until I looked for evidence.

wonders “what the discussion is about.” The question is whether phenomena like plasticity and epigenetic inheritance are relevant to the modern synthesis and, if so, whether they demand a revolutionary overhaul of that theory. The comment article is misleading in that it focuses or pretends to focus on the first part of the question (yes, urgently vs no, all is well), which is, in our opinion, the least interesting and important part. The main issue at stake seems to be whether an extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) constitutes a revolutionary replacement of what is here called the standard evolutionary theory (SET). One thing is certain: previous extensions or rethinks of SET such as neutralism or punctuated equilibrium were also heralded as revolutionary but eventually turned out to be not much more than mere wrinkles on the surface of evolutionary theory (quoting Richard Dawkins). Will the fate of this new and significant extension be any fundamentally different? We doubt it. We tend to agree with Buss: “The synthetic theory cannot be incorrect; it can only be incomplete”

Heres a comment from the article in Nature that I tend to agree with....

"...punctuated equilibrium were also heralded as revolutionary but eventually turned out to be not much more than mere wrinkles on the surface of evolutionary theory (quoting Richard Dawkins)."

Keep mining, youre not too convincing.

in addition,do you really think that volution is "in crisis"?

We consider ourselves fortunate to live and work in the most exciting, inclusive and progressive period of evolutionary research since the modern synthesis. Far from being stuck in the past, current evolutionary theory is vibrantly creative and rapidly growing in scope.

FBM wrote:

I'm thinking the theory of evolution will continue to evolve.

     ... When one builds something on quicksands what is needed is rather reinforcement of the foundations ... than continue building a skyscaper ... on the shaking assumptions.

However, I find myself, based upon evidence mostly from endemism, a growing "fn" of "Phenotypic Plasticity"

My comments are not really about evolution, per se. They relate more to issues which arise in the philosophy of science.

“Education is that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.” (Ambrose Bierce)

Im still fter the answer s to hether you really mean that the THEORY IS IN CRISIS.

axioms are self evident truths

. A theory is
1A fact developed by evidence or axioms or other theories

Nat selection isnt , therefore an axiom. Its not self evident

Nat selection is the CORE of Darwinian Evolutionary theory

Ive NEVER asked you to do anything. If you recall, you were the one who started in and suggested that the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis was in need of changing an suggested there was a "crisis"

( but you failed to distinguish between neo nd Darwinian).

I disagree

There is a fundamental difference between fact and theory

t. I don't agree that it isn't an axiom of neo-darwinistic theory, however.

Where, and in what way, did I fail to do this?