Why do people deny evolution?

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I tell you why: flattery. It tells what you want to hear, that's all. It could be written by a brain-dead chimp riled up with cocaine, you would still read it because it tells you that you are right...

Hmm interesting! You are jumping to a lot of conclusions without any form
of evidence. A bit, like say, ehh uhh devout-religionists-evolutionists-fundamentalistst. Wink

But you can also just simply say, you have no clue, because of course you haven't read the book.

figures, it is always the same.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Honestly, I couldn't care less what this guy Milton's particular argument is. My point is that doubters are very selective about what they accept and reject, based on their own bias. This bias (be it religious or ideological) is usually very strong in doubters, and anything confirming the bias is ok, while anything going against it is bad. Thus the bias can only be reinforced.

This apply to all of us to a degree or another. The more ideological one is, the less one is willing to take on board dissenting opinions, alternative explanations and facts contradicting one's ideology.

well, indeed.

You have to face that evolution really is an ideology now, so yes I agree on this one.

1 Reply

Do people here still believe that similarity or closeness of DNA is 'evidence' for evolution??

Of course it is not!

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Answer my question then: why did you decide to read this book, if not because it was telling you what you wanted to hear?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

He sure knows how to redefine evolution; he finds specific past errors, then says because of those mistakes, evolution is not credible.

He lacks the basic understanding of logic, evolution and science.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Evolution is not an ideology but a scientific theory, like thermodynamics. Some people have tried to make an ideology out of it, usually to say that the strong must trample the weak (nazism in other words) but that didn't work out very well. Trying to make a political ideology out of thermodynamics would probably not work that well either...

However, the fear of evolution that you are displaying may be ideological, or perhaps simply psychological.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

It's primarily religious' belief that puts fear into their psyche. That's the reason why they find every excuse in trying to deny evolution. As we have seen, there's plenty of similar thinking 'nuts' out there that pushes their creationist persuasion. They just can't answer one simple question; prove your god exists.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Usually yes but not in the case of Queho, who is a 'special' evolution denier in the sense that he is not religious. I see him as the hyper-skeptic par excellence, a mega-giga-skeptic who doubts EVERYTHING THAT IS CONSENSUAL IN HIS SOCIETY, starting with anything you learn at school (a result of academic failure?).

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Ive read Miltons book (and assuming that, perhaps you have not ). Yes, the book I It is loaded with some of the bullshit tht guys like David Quammen come up with because they are not pros in the field of science. He does come up with a number of errors that only a denier of DARWINIAN EVOLUTION ,(ie natural selection,) would need make. Milton, however, does NOT deny evolution, on the contrary, he takes it a giant step further, as a neo-Lamarkian, he is a firm believer in the work or PAul Kammerer and the words of Edward Drinker Cope, both of whom were quite vocal advocates of Lamarkianism. Cope felt that the fossil record was best described by Lamarkian thought, and Kammerer was doing some of the very first experiments in testing acquired characteristics (without really having a mechanism to explain his infrequent hits)

HOWEVER,

Lately, theres a whole new interest in epigenetics and the heritability of acquired characteristics via the DNA that lives OUTSIDE our genes (hence, the word "epigenetics"). In fact, the science is receiving lots of interest and is being considered for a name"Epigenetic Lamarkianism" as an adjunct to Neo Darwinism. Im neutral on the subject as folks much more intelligent than Iam are doing research an some of it gets to be close to compelling. Heres a clip from the "Epigenetic Lmarkianism" stub from Wikipedia:

Quote:

Forms of 'soft' or epigenetic inheritance within organisms have been suggested as neo-Lamarckian in nature by such scientists as Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb. In addition to 'hard' or genetic inheritance, involving the duplication of genetic material and its segregation during meiosis, there are other hereditary elements that pass into the germ cells also. These include things like methylation patterns in DNA and chromatin marks, both of which regulate the activity of genes. These are considered "Lamarckian" in the sense that they are responsive to environmental stimuli and can differentially affect gene expression adaptively, with phenotypic results that can persist for many generations in certain organisms.[75] In 2008, Jablonka and Lamb published a paper which claimed there is evidence for Lamarckian epigenetic control systems causing evolutionary changes and the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome.[76]

Interest in Lamarckism has increased, as studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation. A 2009 study examined foraging behavior in chickens as a function of stress,[77] concluding:

Our findings suggest that unpredictable food access caused seemingly adaptive responses in feeding behavior, which may have been transmitted to the offspring by means of epigenetic mechanisms, including regulation of immune genes. This may have prepared the offspring for coping with an unpredictable environment.... Transmissions of information across generations which does not involve traditional inheritance of DNA-sequence alleles is often referred to as soft inheritance [78] or 'Lamarckian inheritance'.[77]

The evolution of acquired characteristics has also been shown in human populations who have experienced starvation, resulting in altered gene function in both the starved population and their offspring.[79] The process of DNA methylation is thought to be behind such changes.

In October 2010, further evidence linking food intake to traits inherited by the offspring were shown in a study of rats conducted by several Australian universities.[80] The study strongly suggested that fathers can transfer a propensity for obesity to their daughters as a result of the fathers' food intake, and not their genetics (or specific genes), prior to the conception of the daughter. A "paternal high-fat diet" was shown to cause cell dysfunction in the daughter, which in turn led to obesity for the daughter. Felicia Nowak, et al. reported at The Endocrine Society meeting in June 2013 that obese male rats passed on the tendency to obesity to their male offspring.[81]

Several studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009, "The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."[82] A report investigating the inheritance of resistance to viral infection in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans suggests that small RNA molecules may be inherited in a non Mendelian fashion and provide resistance to infection.[83]

Everything changes. However, we need to dispassionately keep up without taking too firm a handhold, thus, by dogma alone, we become unable to entertain these changes. Sometimes , yesterdays **** is tomorrows filet.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

If Quahog HAS read Milton, and endorses it. He better realize that hes painted himself into a neat corner. Hes denying something based upon someone who really doesn't deny it at all, he only denies the " biological methodology by which it is accomplished in nature".
Sometimes Quahog is his own worst enemy. BUT I THINK HE KNOWS THIS and really isn't as stupid as he puts on.

OR NOT

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You wrote,

Quote:

Lamarkianism

, but I read it as Malarkism. I wonder why. LOL

However, I don't see any conflict in Lamarkianism as they have a marker in the DNA that is identified. I'm not sure how this contradicts what is understood about genetics.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Thanks, that's very cool. But it only makes the case of Queho mentioning it more typical of a denier blinded to facts. He said he read Milton's book which you say disagrees with the classic neo-darwinian MECHANISMS of evolution BUT AGREES WITH EVOLUTION ITSELF. He reads that book (?) and concludes that the book disagrees with evolution... Disingenuous at worse, or at best totally blinded to facts. Unable to SEE them even...

1 Reply

What an absolutely brilliant decision to allow him to stay on the board. He's nothing but a universal nuisance.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Because when you claim that the Big Bang is a fact (and not a misinterpretation of light-travel-particles phenomena) you have to prove it, above all that:
1. it exists

It doesn't and nobody claims that it does. The theory says it happened 13.7 billion years ago.

Quote:

2. the Big Bang has the ability to create 3D space out of any-D Hyperspace (if such Hyperspace exists)

The BB has no power to do anything. It's over. Done. In the past. You're speaking of it as if it were a proposed diety in competition with yours.

Quote:

3. All the assumptions to the Big Bang theory are verified and validated and confirmed with accuracy to the 18th digit after the decimal point.

Why? Because you demand it? Do you demand the same exactitude for claims about your invisible sky-king? I think not.

Quote:

4. Anything in the Big Bang theory, without any exception, should match everything in our understanding of the world ... without any exception. Nothing can exist that has all over it one and the same age, but its different parts have been born at various points of time - depending on how far from the center of the body they are.

Show me observable phenomena and necessary inference that contradict it, then. That said, scientific theories are openly tentative and open to revision. Show scientists a clear violation of their theory and they'll revise the theory. As opposed to theists, who respond to challenges with violence, oppression, obfuscation, hand-waving, appeals to tradition and authority, etc etc.

Quote:

5. In your understanding of the things: how much and what types of proof would be enough to resolve the dispute with the falseness of the Big Bang 'theory'.

Not sure how to parse that question. Anyway, show me something that disproves or violates the BB theory. Word salads aren't enough. Show me some observational data that refute it.

Quote:

How did you come to know that we should have the access to observe God ... and not to infer Him/It, for example? Where do you 'know' all that from?

So that's a 'no,' then, to my question about whether or not you've observed your god. And you might want to check on the definition of 'infer.' I don't think it means what you think it means. You need evidence to do inference from. It's not the same as pulling an answer out of your imagination or Bronze Age mythology.

Quote:

What are you talking about the mind-body problem - when you have no plausible interpretation of it. You don't know what our mind is ... and how it works, and what is the difference between living biocode (living human) and a dead biocode (dead body). Haven't you paid attention that it is not the medical science that is driving our body, but rather the discoveries on our body that are driving the medical science. Our body is light years ahead of any science, of anything that science is, and ever will be.

No, I'm not talking about the mind-body problem. I'm talking about the spirit or soul that you theists believe exits the body after death and lives on through eternity in heaven or hell. That fits neither the definition of mind nor body. You're just dodging. Again.

Quote:

What about confirmatory runs? Your favorite evolution theory claims that life on Earth has been created by a thunder strike 0f an accidental lightning over a broth of amino-acids. Why don't you confirm that by experiments ... on the Moon or on some asteroid, or on Mars - here on Earth you cannot confirm anything, for you cannot isolate the biosphere of the Earth from the experiment.

Since that's a silly misrepresentation of the various hypotheses regarding the origins of life, which is completely unrelated to the question of evolution via natural selection, I see no reason to respond to it. It's just a red herring.

Edit: Oh, well, maybe one thing. How about doing some "confirmation runs" on this god of yours? Laughing

Quote:

What about verification (the assurance that the Big Bang can be created out of the Hyperspace, or out of the zero-D space or out of whatever; that an explosion can create a brand new space ... with brand new dimensions), and validation (whether the mind-blowing claims of the Big Bang 'theory' are in compliance with any of the laws of physics, or math logic, etc.)?

Not sure why you're asking for it, since you obviously couldn't comprehend it (not that I can), but here's more than enough, starting with Hubble Expansion:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html
http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/lincoln.final.pdf

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

This sentence needs a little revision,

Quote:

5. In your understanding of the things: how much and what types of proof would be enough to resolve the dispute with the falseness of the Big Bang 'theory'.

"How much and what types of proof would be enough to resolve the existence of your god?"

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
I have another question: how did it happen so that we (the Earth) are into the 'center' of the Universe - absolutely equal red shift in all directions. How has that job happened?

ROFLMAO.
That has to be one of the stupidest statements from you yet.

If you have three objects moving at different speeds that all started from the same point they will all see the same redshift in the other objects even though none of them are at the center.

If we start with 3 objects close together and then accelerate them at different speeds :

A B C
....A.....B.....C

A will see B and C moving away. B will see A and C moving away. C will see A and B moving away. None of the objects are at the center but all will see red shift in every other object.

Your understanding of modern physics is seriously deficient. The current view is that one would observe a more or less uniform red shift in all directions, FROM ANY VIEWPOINT IN THE UNIVERSE. There is nothing central or special about the earth's location in the universe. This is a result of general relativity and the continuing expansion of space. Think of a baloon with painted spots on the surface, and imagine it is being inflated. A two dimensional observer would see all the spots receeding from him at a rate proportional to their distance from him, and one could make the identical observation from any of the spots on the surface of the baloon.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

It doesn't and nobody claims that it does. The theory says it happened 13.7 billion years ago.

     The theory doesn't claim exactly that. One of its claims are: traces of the Big Bang can still be observed on the radio telescope and in few decades they will become under the radar (would not be able to be detected any more). So the theory claims that the events that are observed along the 'edges' of the visible Universe are Big Bang in action and 'in real time' - what has arrived here 13.7 Bya later. The first question is: how much time has the Big Bang needed to 'expand' from zero-D space into a Universe with a radius of 13.7 billion light years? Time Zero does not exist in the physical world. If the Big Bang is expanding at the speed of light in vacuum it will need 13.7 billion years to 'reach' the present day observable 'edges' and another 13.7 Bya for the light of the observation to come back. If the Big Bang has expanded in zero time, how much is the rate of expansion 'to make' a Universe with a radius of 13.7 billion light years? There must be something totally wrong with all that cosmological model ... and theory.
     O.K. let's accept that the Big Bang has expanded at a speed of 13.7 Bya/Zero-t (and is accelerating - whatever all that might mean). What is observed on the radio telescope along 'the edges' of the Universe at present is what has been there 13.7 Bya, right, and has arrived here 13.7 Bya later, and we can observe that past at present, because for the observations we will need to wait for the light to travel from there to here and to pass that distance of 13.7 billion light years (if the distance is that).
     IMV this scenario for the 'creation' of the visible Universe might be rather spectacular, but is highly improbable.

FBM wrote:

The BB has no power to do anything.

... Except for the energy, which obviously has been enough to create the Mass & the Energy of the present day Universe.

FBM wrote:

It's over. Done. In the past.

With all that distances and ages nobody can be sure what is in the past and what is in the present, what is game over and what is online.

FBM wrote:

You're speaking of it as if it were a proposed diety in competition with yours.

You may be kidding, but 'the theory' of the BB is not too far away from the theory of God. God is omnipresent, and so is the Big Bang (it can operate everywhere throughout the physical & metaphysical world); God is omnipotent and so is the BB (it can create anything in contradiction to any law - not only of physics and math logic); God is omniscient - and so is the Science, which is trustee-in-chief of the Big Bang ... and its most zealous apologetics ... as is the Church in relation to God. WFM

FBM wrote:

Why? Because you demand it?

No, it has nothing to do with me and any demands. You simply cannot built a skyscraper on quicksand ... unless you demonstrate that it is possible.

FBM wrote:

Do you demand the same exactitude for claims about your invisible sky-king?

The unconditional assumption that God exists a priori is not too far away from the assumptions that an explosion can create 3D space out of zero-D space by expanding into the 11-D hyperspace at the minimal speed of 13.7 Bya/zero-t ... and accelerate 13.7 Bya ever after.

FBM wrote:

Show me observable phenomena and necessary inference that contradict it, then.

First of all you don't know what you are observing at all (whether it is expansion of space or shrinking of the particles with the time, for example), and second you have no guarantee that you are not observing things with huge gaps of missing information of any kind, and third you don't know where these gaps of missing information are, and how far they may spread.

FBM wrote:

That said, scientific theories are openly tentative and open to revision.

I don't see any mindset among the BB apologetics to revise anything, but after you are saying it.

1 Reply

@Herald,

You have some serious misconceptions about BB Theory. It's about the early evolution of the universe. Observed expansion is what led to the hypothesis, further observations and necessary inferences (mathematical calculations) based on those observations.

Quote:

O.K. let's accept that the Big Bang has expanded at a speed of 13.7 Bya/Zero-t (and is accelerating - whatever all that might mean). What is observed on the radio telescope along 'the edges' of the Universe at present is what has been there 13.7 Bya, right, and has arrived here 13.7 Bya later,

No, let's not accept any such thing, because it's nonsense. The BB hasn't expanded, the universe has. Nothing has "arrived here." You're seriously misunderstanding the theory. There was no pre-existing "here" for anything to arrive at. Seriously. Is that what you're picturing in your mind?

Quote:

With all that distances and ages nobody can be sure what is in the past and what is in the present, what is game over and what is online.

Whew, speak for yourself, hoss. You seem to be the one having problem understanding. I've read some deranged statements online, but this one ranks right up there.

Then again, so does this one:

Quote:

...'the theory' of the BB is not too far away from the theory of God. God is omnipresent, and so is the Big Bang (it can operate everywhere throughout the physical & metaphysical world); God is omnipotent and so is the BB (it can create anything in contradiction to any law - not only of physics and math logic); God is omniscient - and so is the Science, which is trustee-in-chief of the BB Itself ... and its most zealous apologetics ... as is the Church in regard to God. WFM

Dude. Pay attention. The BB was an event. You're conflating it with the universe as a whole. You're either doing it out of genuine misunderstanding or you're disingenuously twisting words so that you can slip your Bronze Age myth in there. But the fact remains that you're trying to treat the BB as if it were an entity, which the theory doesn't. The way you keep putting scare quotes around the word 'theory' seriously suggests that you don't know the meaning of the word as it's used in science. I recommend you look that one up.

You're making all sorts of claims about your god, now how about showing some evidence that such a thing even exists? There's buttloads for the event known as the BB. I notice you conveniently elided the links I provided.

Quote:

First of all you don't know what you are observing at all...

Speak for yourself, hoss. You have no way of knowing what I know and don't know. You don't have access to my mind. Wink

As for the "huge gaps" of information, that's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard it. I'm not sure if it's even possible to have a bigger gap in your god theory, since there's no evidence whatsoever to support it. Laughing

Quote:

I don't see any mindset among the BB apologetics to revise anything, but after you are saying it.

I suspect it's because you're seeing what you want to see. Scientific knowledge is inferential; it produces probabilities that are inherently tentative. It's your theism that's making absolute, eternal claims. When scientists get conflicting data, they revise their claims. It's called learning. Try it sometime. Wink

1 Reply

Quote:

Evidence of Evolution

The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world. When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time. Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified.

...

How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations
...

(emphasis added)
More details at: http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

1 Reply

@FBM,

so you rely on AUTHORITY instead of REAL EVIDENCE?

Interesting!

Maybe because there is no evidence?

Nobody is able to show this so far.

The evolutionistst are just repeating their party line and think that if you repeat it often enough it becomes fact. Hilarious to see, to say the least.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know