132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
raprap
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 10:34 pm
@farmerman,
Clark's Laws

Quote:

1)When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2)The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3)Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


Rap
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 23 Dec, 2013 10:41 pm
@neologist,
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Indohyus_BW.jpg


Evolution is often, as Miller says

1Being at the right place at the right time

2 TAking whats already there and doing something new with it.

Thus the whale. The only thing I think we should be more considering of is that one of the early "LAWS" of evolution candidacy as verbalized by RAup is that " being a candidate for evolution rather than extinction is usually directly proportional to the number of species in ones genus. So Indohyus may have been a genus with a number of species, each with a minor niche adaptation that made one or more of them learn to love being a MARINE ANIMAL.

We haven't found all these "cousin" fossils as of yet so we cant, in a strait face stand around and pour all of our evolutionarily needed traits onto little Indohyus. He just has about 5 or 6 adaptations that are more precetacean than not (and his fossils were clearly indicating a marine affinity) in the ancient Indian sub continent alongside the nasty firey landside conditions that Indohyus may have learned to escape.

I always like to go back to the Polar bear where we clearly have an example of macroevolution in limits of times that could have been observed by ancient humans.



JimmyJ
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 12:33 am
@raprap,
Quote:
Do I believe in evolution--actually science is based in nihilism and skepticism. So the answer is no--but for now it is a elegant solution to a complex problem.


So, if given your way we wouldn't bother with science?
raprap
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 05:52 am
@JimmyJ,
Jimmy--some humans are inherently curios and reasonable, and the economic benefits of science is obvious.

Only a fool waiting for extinction would consider anything else.

Perhaps thats the point--perhaps the best option would be to refuse Evolutionary Medical advances to those who deny its validity, removing those who deneigh evolution from the gene pool.

Rap
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 06:38 am
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
Yeah, Jimmy, it really does. If you make an assertion in a debate...the burden of proof does fall on you.


Incorrect


Nope.

Quote:
Quote:
The discussion we are having is a debate of sorts.


You'd like to think so.


Yup.




0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 06:43 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
do you think your guesses are more likely to be the actual reason than the guesses of Gould?

Gould is a co-father suspect of a startlingly obtuse " primary law of evolution" that of "Punctuated Equilibrium ".Most evolutionary biologists don't accept it anymore, and most paleontologists doubted Gould and Eldredge when they first came up with it. Why must we compare one anothers "guesses" with those we pose as authorities, as if quoted authorities are always right and those herein are always wrong .




The question is a valid one...and is not an appeal to authority.

So do you think Jimmy's guesses that nipples on a man are an "evolutionary flaw" than the guesses (!) of Stephen Jay Gould?
parados
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 08:01 am
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
Do I believe in evolution--actually science is based in nihilism and skepticism. So the answer is no--but for now it is a elegant solution to a complex problem.


So, if given your way we wouldn't bother with science?

I don't think you understood raprap's statement.

Science never "believes". Science always questions and modifies when it finds the answer doesn't quite match the question.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 08:15 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
is not an appeal to authority
It is a entirely a blatant "appeal to authority" as if Gould's name alone carries the argument. He too, were he alive, would be required to defend.
Admit it, you were just trying to be a wiseass.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 08:27 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
is not an appeal to authority
It is a entirely a blatant "appeal to authority" as if Gould's name alone carries the argument. He too, were he alive, would be required to defend.
Admit it, you were just trying to be a wiseass.



Having a bad day, FM?

I was asking what I considered a funny question (one I've used many times before) when I asked if anyone wanted to take on the issue of nipples on a man. Jimmy asserted it was an evolutionary flaw. I contrasted that with Gould's take...and merely asked if I should put more confidence in his "Jimmy's" take...or on "Gould."

If it requires that I be using an appeal to authority in that minor (and obviously failed joke)...in order for you to perform your morning defecation..by all means, do consider it as such.

Be sure to wipe carefully.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 08:41 am
@raprap,
Quote:
Jimmy--some humans are inherently curios and reasonable, and the economic benefits of science is obvious.

Only a fool waiting for extinction would consider anything else.


Isn't it the case,rap, that mankind was in no danger of extinction until science came along?
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 08:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
So you deny that you were just a wiseass by once again trying to be a wiseass.
raprap
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 09:11 am
@spendius,
Spendi---Freewill and Science provide an avenue to avoid extinction--prior to that extinctinction was at the will of tools and chaos.

Certain attributes, provided by chance are also used to avoid extinction, but refusing to use a tool generally isn't one of them.

Else the world would be ruled by luddites.

Rap
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 09:23 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

So you deny that you were just a wiseass by once again trying to be a wiseass.


Not sure what you problem is, FM...but a healthy BM should help!
0 Replies
 
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 11:29 am
@raprap,
Quote:
Perhaps thats the point--perhaps the best option would be to refuse Evolutionary Medical advances to those who deny its validity, removing those who deneigh evolution from the gene pool.


That is the most genius thing I've ever heard.
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 11:31 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Isn't it the case,rap, that mankind was in no danger of extinction until science came along?


Mankind had limited knowledge before science came along. We also didn't know that we breathe oxygen.

What's your point here? You're starting to strike out.
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 11:32 am
@farmerman,
He knows he was being a wise ass.

He's a pseudo-intellectual. They tend to be like that.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 11:53 am
@raprap,
In what way could the human race have become extinct before science excluding, obviously, an event which rendered science extinct as well.

A few hundred years of science and some people talk about science rendering all life forms extinct. An inside job.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 11:56 am
@JimmyJ,
Quote:
That is the most genius thing I've ever heard.


It might be but only if a mechanism existed to carry it through.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 11:58 am
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:
I'm not an expert on the study of whale evolution. . . . it does seem as though you're questioning the validity of the folks down at UC Berk., in which case I must assume that you are some type of Biology genius.
I suspect there are no experts on whale evolution, save those who remain convinced despite the impossibility of simultaneous breach birth, migrating nostril, and separation of trachea from throat. Their only sure explanation being "It's evolution! It must have happened!"
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 24 Dec, 2013 12:01 pm
@JimmyJ,
Quote:
You're starting to strike out.


That's an Apisaism.

The point is that mankind was in no danger of extinction until science came along.

What's your point?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 11:02:04