Why do people deny evolution?

The Theory of evolution has never been disproven to my knowledge, though I would be interested to see any convincing disproof you might offer

I believe you may be confusing evolution with creation

There is no statistical argument against the evolution of existing species and their observed growing complexity and differentiation from one another thrugh this process.

Indeed most thoughtful observers appear to believe it is, by far, the most statistically likely explanation for the ample observable data.

Perhaps you imagine we are dealing with the question s surrounding the emergence of life from organic chemicals

While many, perhaps most, serious scientists believe this to be true, and evidence suggesting it did indeed occur is in fact accumulating, the question is still open.

The facts supporting the evolution of species don't depend on the answer to that question at all.

In either event the questions surrounding the existence and origin of the observable universe remain. They are, at least so far, outside the domain of science based on observation of repeatable phenomena. Many folks , both within the scientific commiunity and outside of it claim to know the answer and both groups populate both sides of these questions. I believe The universe did have a creator, but recognize that science can neither prove nor disprove this conjecture or belief

Quote:

There is no statistical argument against the evolution of existing species and their observed growing complexity and differentiation from one another thrugh this process.

Yes, there is.

Quote:

Indeed most thoughtful observers appear to believe it is, by far, the most statistically likely explanation for the ample observable data.

Exactly! It is a belief and not true. Furthermore I don't care how many people believe it! I only look at evidence! There is none

Quote:

In either event the questions surrounding the existence and origin of the observable universe remain. They are, at least so far, outside the domain of science based on observation of repeatable phenomena. Many folks , both within the scientific commiunity and outside of it claim to know the answer and both groups populate both sides of these questions. I believe The universe did have a creator, but recognize that science can neither prove nor disprove this conjecture or belief

.

As I have stated before, the premisse in 'science' ( the word alone makes me laugh!!) is that there is no God/Creator. It is assumed at the beginning.
So, because of the use by scientists ( here I go again!! lol) circular reasoning.
they will never find one. It is already removed from any equation.

Then it is merely unfortunate that you have never offered any specific description or even reference to it.

Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution


Physicist Dr. Lee M. Spetner's new book has biologists and geneticists across the country praising this book as one of the most serious challenges to the modern theory of evolution. "Dr. Spetner has an extraordinary ability to present complex mathematical, statistical, and biological issues in a comprehensible manner."--Rabbi Joseph Elias, The Jewish Observer "It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read"--Professor E. Simon, Department of Biology, Purdue Universit

Most people assume that a dialectic exists between the paradigm of evolution and deep time on one side, and religion on the other. That is basically wrong. The dialectic is between evolution(ism) and other branches of science, particularly mathematics and probability theory. In the mid 1960s when computers capable of analyzing the math and probabilities involved in evolution became available a series of symposia were held at the Wistar center at the University of Pennsylvania and a non-meeting of the minds ensued involving evolutionary biologists on one side and mathematicians on the other, and both sides left with the feeling that the other was in some sort of denial.

The biggest group of people who do not believe in evolution is probably mathematicians, and not Christians.


http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution08/evolution_main.html

Basically, a reasonable person might entertain a theory requiring one probabilistic miracle or zero-probability event in the entire history of the planet, but not a theory requiring an infinite series of zero-probability events; that stands everything we know about probability theory on its head. An intuitive idea of the size of the problem can be had by analyzing what would have to take place for flying birds to evolve.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitesimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelfth-order infinitesimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.


All of that was the best case. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.




http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution08/evolution_main.html

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution08/evolution_main.html

No, it is a widely held belief that fits all known evidence, a well established scientific theory ( like relativity and many others). The evidence in support of it is ample - and you show no indication of ever having considered it. More importantly, you have offered zero evidencs suggesting it is not true - nothwithstanding all your pompous claims that you "look only at the evidence"

You are simply wrong in assering that the absence of a creator is a fundamental premise of science. It is not. Instead the fundamental premise is a search for the truths or explanations (theories) that can be observed or deduced from repeated observations of nature and the physical world. No more, no less.

You occasionally rise to the level of the circular reasoning of which you accuse scientists, but your statements here are mostly inconsistent and totally irrational. You clearly credit yourself with degrees of openness, knowledge and understanding that you equally clearly don't posess. That is a good definition of a fool.

The Haldane dilemma is basically higher arithematic more so than anything you might call higher math; a sixth grader should be able to understand it.

Walter Remine’s simplistic explanation of it goes like this:

• Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or “proto-humans” ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a “beneficial mutation”. Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.

• Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.

• Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in “human evolution”. The max number of such “beneficial mutations” which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from neanderthals.

In a rational world, that should be as far as most people need to read. That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes, in ten million years the best you could possibly hope for would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail.


http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution08/evolution_main.html

Just proves once again how ignorant you really are. You or others of the creationist meme never heard of the human tailbone. LOL

The Tailbone
The tailbone or coccyx has often been presumed to be vestigial and a leftover remnant to our alleged mammal and reptilian ancestors who also had tails. Evidence that is cited includes the variable number of bony segments humans can have (usually 4 but can be 3 or 5) as well as “babies born with tails.” But these so called tails are not really tails at all and instead are a type of fatty tumor. There are no bones or muscles in them at all, and thus, it cannot truly be considered a vestigial organ.5

Spinney acknowledges that the coccyx now has a “modified function, notably as an anchor point for the muscles that hold the anus in place.” In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.

https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/setting-the-record-straight-on-vestigial-organs/

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/haldane2.pdf

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?