Why do people deny evolution?

@Herald,

Let's see who knows more about astronomy: http://www.clickhole.com/quiz/are-you-astronomy-nerd-1407?utm_campaign=default&utm_medium=ShareTools&utm_source=facebook

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

His point is that the earth is about 200,000 yrs old or something like that...

Not according to his book! again, he makes it abundantly clear that we can';t measure the age of the earth! So we don't know if it is young or old.

1 Reply

@FBM,

WFM - documents. What documents are you going to present as evidences in support of the BB? The local workshop on astrophysics will issue a Resolution that the BB is Real ... to the best of our knowledge and skills, or what?
The basic types of knowledge acquisition are:
     1. Characterization (observations, definitions, measurements)
     2. Hypotheses (plausible explanations of observations and measurements and verification for truth of representation)
     3. Predictions (logical inferences based on past data & any information collected in the past)
     4. Experiments (tests for verification of events, theories, processes etc.)
     5. Validation (checks for plausibility, feasibility, etc.)
     You cannot take a definition from a dictionary just so - the scientific methods as a rule use usually their own definitions ... unless the BB confesses that it has nothing to do with the scientific methods.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I've already linked you and you ignored the links, so just educate yourself.

Still waiting for that evidence to support your god hypothesis...*cough*

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

I've already linked you and you ignored the links, so just educate yourself.

Still waiting for that evidence to support your god hypothesis...*cough*

And why do you believe everything that is in that link?

There is and there never was a Biggie Bangie.

Unless you can explain what exploded!!! LOL

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I've already linked you ...

... and what is that test supposed to prove. This is super-specific domain knowledge and it does not solve general problems like for example whether the optical illusion that the Universe 'is expanding' is not due to our relative movement along a spiral within the Milky way (falling very slowly to Sagittarius), for example.
I never go through domain knowledge at the level of specification that you propose - that is what the domain experts are for (those who have sound knowledge and are fair enough to share it with the public ... and not to talk anything that is convenient to the status quo).

FBM wrote:

... and you ignored the links, so just educate yourself.

I can also give you some references ... perhaps to unlearn some things that you have mastered by accident.
http://www.indiabix.com/online-test/logical-reasoning-test/

1 Reply

@Herald,

That last bit is rich, coming from someone who just learned that logical inference requires evidence. Laughing

The most important thing I've learned from you is that you have no evidence to support your god hypothesis. If you had, you would have posed it already. Evidence. Not word salads.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

The most important thing I've learned from you is that you have no evidence to support your god hypothesis. If you had, you would have posed it already. Evidence. Not word salads.

Same for evolution, bro! No evidence at all!!! Only word salad!

Why on earth do people cling to this disproven theories? Could it be extremely deep indoctrination? Wink

1 Reply

Further reference:

Quote:

From single cells to multicellular life: Researchers capture the emergence of multicellular life in real-time experiments

Date:
November 6, 2014
Source:
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Summary:
All multicellular creatures are descended from single-celled organisms. The leap from unicellularity to multicellularity is possible only if the originally independent cells collaborate. So-called cheating cells that exploit the cooperation of others are considered a major obstacle. Now, researchers capture the emergence of multicellular life in real-time experiments.

All multicellular creatures are descended from single-celled organisms. The leap from unicellularity to multicellularity is possible only if the originally independent cells collaborate. So-called cheating cells that exploit the cooperation of others are considered a major obstacle. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Plön, Germany, together with researchers from New Zealand and the USA, have observed in real time the evolution of simple self-reproducing groups of cells from previously individual cells. The nascent organisms are comprised of a single tissue dedicated to acquiring oxygen, but this tissue also generates cells that are the seeds of future generations: a reproductive division of labour. Intriguingly, the cells that serve as a germ line were derived from cheating cells whose destructive effects were tamed by integration into a life cycle that allowed groups to reproduce. The life cycle turned out to be a spectacular gift to evolution. Rather than working directly on cells, evolution was able to work on a developmental programme that eventually merged cells into a single organism. When this happened groups began to prosper with the once free-living cells coming to work for the good of the whole.

...

Story continues at link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106113334.htm

3 Replies

@FBM,

What are you trying to say?

0 Replies

@FBM,

The peer-reviewed link: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7525/full/nature13884.html (subscription required, but preview below)

Quote:

Life cycles, fitness decoupling and the evolution of multicellularity

Katrin Hammerschmidt, Caroline J. Rose, Benjamin Kerr & Paul B. Rainey
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature 515, 75–79 (06 November 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13884
Received 03 November 2013 Accepted 22 September 2014 Published online 05 November 2014

Cooperation is central to the emergence of multicellular life; however, the means by which the earliest collectives (groups of cells) maintained integrity in the face of destructive cheating types is unclear. One idea posits cheats as a primitive germ line in a life cycle that facilitates collective reproduction. Here we describe an experiment in which simple cooperating lineages of bacteria were propagated under a selective regime that rewarded collective-level persistence. Collectives reproduced via life cycles that either embraced, or purged, cheating types. When embraced, the life cycle alternated between phenotypic states. Selection fostered inception of a developmental switch that underpinned the emergence of collectives whose fitness, during the course of evolution, became decoupled from the fitness of constituent cells. Such development and decoupling did not occur when groups reproduced via a cheat-purging regime. Our findings capture key events in the evolution of Darwinian individuality during the transition from single cells to multicellularity.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

If you had, you would have posed it already. Evidence. Not word salads.

     I have evidence ... right from your pseudo-test in astronomy. I have evidence that you really don't know what is at the bottom of the Black Hole ... and whether it has bottom at all, or it ends up into a Gamma Ray Burster.
     What evidence am I supposed to present in order to prove that the origin of the Universe is unknowable?
    Actually I may present something that is at least plausible - an inference by analogy as an evidence that you don't understand anything of Hyperspace and processes.
     We all live in a 3-D world, right? Everything in our world is 3-D - we are 3-D, our living space is 3-D, even our game simulations are 3-D. When we want to use some 2-D space, we simply take a sheet of paper and constrain the 3-D space that we are living, into a 2-D space ... on which to write letters, for example. Actually we don't create any 2-D space. We use the constraints of the 3-D to organize a 2-D space within it. There is no act of creation.
     Now follow this. If the Hyperspace is 11-D, to make a 3-D space out of it you don't need to create anything. All you have to do is to constrain the 11-D space into 3-D space, hence Big Bang has not created anything, because our Universe can be formed as a constraint in the Hyperspace (if exists) and is highly improbable to have been created from zero-D space becoming a 3-D, and having in mind that constraining of the space through explosion is also highly improbable as a method of 'creation', this whole story with the creation of the world by the BB starts collapsing like a tower of cards.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Show your evidence that supports your god hypothesis, then. Something that can be observed and tested. Not just more word salads. Empirical evidence. Show it. Link to it. Something. Anything but endless hand-waving.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Show your evidence that supports your god hypothesis, then.

This is a logical fallacy of class 'Excluded middle' - if it is not the BB, it must be God, where all the other possibilities are excluded a priory. Where is your evidence, that there isn't any third option in the whole that story?

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

I am quite sure that a normal reader of Milton's book would have noticed his young-earth hypothesis. But you are a special type of reader, one that can only see and absorb things that confirm your own stance. Things that flater you are seen, things that contradict you are invisible to you. That allows you to maintain your lunatic theories.

Another characteristic of deniers is their preference for NOT KNOWING. They rarely propose positive knowledge, prefering to spread doubt. E.g. what you are saying here is typical of that tendency: 'we cannot know the age of the earth' = 'I deny that others eg scientists can know better than I do' = 'I hate them when they say they know something.'

Doubt is like everything: there's a optimal point somewhere beyond which there can be something as 'too much doubt', where it becomes counter-productive.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I am quite sure that a normal reader of Milton's book would have noticed his young-earth hypothesis.

How can it be?! He even adresses this specialy in his book!
Maybe read the book mate before you talk about somethingh you know noting about.
His conclusion is that we can not know the age of the earth, so we don't know if it is young or old. So, no, you are wrong here.

Quote:

But you are a special type of reader, one that can only see and absorb things that confirm your own stance. Things that flater you are seen, things that contradict you are invisible to you. That allows you to maintain your lunatic theories.

How can it be? You don't know me. Once I believed in that stupid and idiotic evolution theory, Not anymore!
So, you are wrong here, again!~

Quote:

Another characteristic of deniers is their preference for NOT KNOWING. They rarely propose positive knowledge, prefering to spread doubt. E.g. what you are saying here is typical of that tendency: 'we cannot know the age of the earth' = 'I deny that others eg scientists can know better than I do' = 'I hate them when they say they know something.'

How can it be? Here we go again! I don't hate anybody.
It seems to you that actually I am not allowed to say that 'we' don't know the age of the earth. Do some research, mate. Dating is extremely flawed en ful of errors.
So, you are wrong here, again!

Quote:

Doubt is like everything: there's a optimal point somewhere beyond which there can be something as 'too much doubt', where it becomes counter-productive.

LOL Now you are saying HOW I have to doubt???

You are very funny!

btw which theorie (of mine???) is lunatic?

1 Reply

@FBM,

you think peer-reviewing is holy , don't you?
I have news for you, it isn't !

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

It seems to you that actually I am not allowed to say that 'we' don't know the age of the earth. Do some research, mate. Dating is extremely flawed en ful of errors.

You cannot know what other people can or cannot know. I know things and places you have no idea about. I have been exposed to ideas which you haven't been exposed to. How can you tell me what i can and cannot know?

0 Replies

@Herald,

The expression you wanted was a priori--you do yoursefl no favors when you language use is so inept.

This is typical of the way you weasel out of any responsibility for a plausible thesis. You won't say who the intelligent designer is, and you provide no evidence that any part of life on earth has been designed. You're an intellectual coward which is typical of the ID crowd. Small wonder one would assume you are a theist.

Instead of playing your stupid game, i will repeat my questions which you have not answered. Who or what is the designer? What evidence do you have for your claim?

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

[Same for evolution, bro! No evidence at all!!! Only word salad!

Why on earth do people cling to this disproven theories? Could it be extremely deep indoctrination?

The Theory of evolution has never been disproven to my knowledge, though I would be interested to see any convincing disproof you might offer. It is simply a fact that there is ample, observable evidence for evolution out there. One needs only to consult the ample record and think about the question. It is still called a theory, simply because because we cannot observe the process in an immediate and direct way. However there is no alternative explanation for the huge quantity of readily observable data indicating the gradual adaptation of species of all kinds to competition and changes in their environments. Moreover we can increasingly confirm these links through DNA analysis of both living specimins and some physical remains.

It seems to me that if you are so steadfast in your categorical denials, you should offer at least some alternate explanations of possible alternatives to evolution in the ample base of data and observation that so strongly suggfests it is a fact. That you have made no effort to do so makes your insistent denials look a bit like some form of fanaticism that is immune to evidence, rational arguments and reasoned discorse..

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know