Why do people deny evolution?

~

Just means: NO WE CAN'T!!

You stated Einstein proved that objects with mass are not attracted to other objects with mass. Einstein changed how we think about the attraction but the objects are still attracted to one another. It's you that doesn't understand gravity or space time if you think Einstein would have shown the opposite of objects of mass being attracted to each other.

You didn't like my made up statistics so you just doubled down on your made up ones? I think you should try walking off a building.

I didn't catch his reference to "Stable species". As far as I know, we have very few "Stable" species.
I can think of horseshoe crabs and the Cooelecanth , and 1 brachiopod.
"Stable" merely means not going extinct while youre around

That's really hopping the facts known about dinosaurs. There are plenty of fossils left to prove they once habited this planet. "Stable species" is an oxymoron. All living things change with the inherent genes/biology and environment.

Don't know exactly what stable species would mean. There is always some genetic variability within any species, and the proportion of specific alleles (forms that a gene can take) is going up and down as environmental stresses are leaning on this or that aspect of the gene pool.

Obvious example: a new disease or a mutating form of an old disease appears --> among the individuals infected, some die --> among the survivers, some will have by chance a genetic (inheritable) resitance to the disease --> their children consistently out-survive other individuals as long as the disease is around --> the gene pool of that species changes over time.

This caveat said, i think many cryptogamic plants (ferns etc) have been around for a long time.

yep. "Stable" --in what time frame. We are all transitional "would be" fossils

There are still people arguing about a lack of transitional fossils? Wtf.

The reason they can't see it is very simple; they refuse to accept the facts - based on their belief in creationism. What they want to see are more transitional fossils that takes it from the first one through the last one that shows intermediate fossils that goes from one frame to the next in sequence - step by step. That's also the reason they refuse to accept DNA proofs.

Even then, they will refute what they see. That's because their religion has a toe-hold on their brains.

Yeah, that's about the long and short of it. They've got to keep pushing the illusion that there's a gap big enough to wedge their god into. That requires stubborn denialism, which they turn into a virtue by calling it "faith."

THAT ARE NO TRANSISTIONAL FOSSILS MATE!!!!!

that are fully formed ones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GEE , are you people blind or what?????

Surely the thermionic valve is a transiStional fossil !

That is a great answer. Thank you. I always hear them say 99.9999% of species are extinct, but never give the number as being 10's of billion, and i assumed they add the extra 9's for dramatic effect because that would put the number of species in the trillions. As for the multiple extinctions within 700 million year(i agree most species would be in that time) period, that is facinating, but wouldn't that slow down evolution? One question i have relating to this is how many mutations are between each species? Is it 1 a few or more. Thanks again

"One of my favorite fossil transitional forms is Tiktaalik Rosaea>Its found in the units of the Devonian below where amphibians are found, and they re found in the same unit which is ABOVE the layers that contain earlier lobe-finned fish Eustenopteron . Here we have an earlier fish species with features showing a trend toward becoming a lnd dweller, Then we have Tiktaalik, just above , in the later mid Devonian. Tiktaalik shows a great advance to "amphibian state." from you posting you believe tiktaalik is a transition between lobe-finned fish and amphibians, but you can't say which fish or which amphibians. If you look at the anatomy of the "feet" they used to walk on the sea floor and compare it to tetrapods it is not how evolution would predict. I think all the theories of evolution that you believe are exceptional claims and "with exceptional claims we demand exceptional evidence". I don't see why it is unreasonable to ask to compare 3 species that show a anatomical evolution. I do not try to refute evolution, i am trying to undersatand why you believe the current theories to be fact. I do not know why you are calling me names, i appreciate you answering my questions. I think we learn the most from people we disagree with. I am not attacking your beliefs. Why you think anyone who doesnt agree with evolution is a creationist is fascinating. I dont know much about creatitionist and never read any of the many bibles. I think most creationist believe the earth is 6-10 k years old, but there are trees older than that. If anything the earth would be older than 4.5 billion years. I understand you see all the similarities which science does prove betweens all living things as proof of evolution, but these similarities are why evolution is a theory not a hypothisis, i think scienticif proof would be 3 species that could be compared. I do not deny evolution, it is a fascinating theory and the current form or modified could be true.

man o man that is not a transitional fossil!!!!

"Any hominim fossil between ardapithecus and us qualifies." could you please just give me the name? You give me 2 species without the transitional form and farmer gave me a transitional species without the 2 species it is between. You can't say that the fossil record is proof then say the fossil record is spectacularly incomplete. wiki gives 6 transitional examples from all species, but none have the species before or after. Yes they show features of different animals.

quahog screams:

What, exactly, do you think this means? Considering you keep repeating and repeating and repeating the same term that no one uses except you? What do you think a transitional fossil is? If by "fully formed", you mean something like it was afunctional, animal that once lived and breathed and reproduced, well, DUH! Ofcourse it did. That's what ALL fossils once did when they were alive. Pretty much every animal, including us, was and is a transition to something else,and everything lives, and breathes, and fucks, and its ancestors were sojmething different and its descendants will be something else again, but it itself is fully functional. Just like us (ecept we have no idea what our many-generations-removed descendants will be like). A transitional fossil has some characteristics of its ancestors and some of what will be its descendants, but it itself will be a functional organism as well, what you are apparently calling "fully formed". It's not going to have "wing stubs growing out of its belly" as in your ludicrous chimera. That's just dumb.

sonichell says:


sure. ardapithecus>australopithecus (several varieties)>homo habilis>homo erectus>homo sapiens neanderthalis (collateral branch with which we interbred)>homo sap sap (us, Cro Magnon fossils, for example) [not a complete list].

And wikipedia gives pages and pages of examples (not just 6).

There have been trillions of species. Many species live in an area that is less than 10 square miles. New species are discovered all the time in the rain forests or Madagascar. Google it.

As to your argument about fossils: Many of those species that lived in a limited area in other times will never be known because they simply weren't widespread enough to leave a fossil record that is easy to find. Creating a fossil requires certain conditions. There are places where those conditions don't occur. Do some research on the Galapagos Islands. There are many species that are found only there and the likelihood of any of those species being fossilized is practically zero.

It's a bit desperate for the evolution deniers to insist that because there are gaps in fossil records evolution can't be true. It's a bit like looking at this fragment of a Roman plate and saying it can't possibly be a plate because it's not complete.

It just amazes me that so many people spend so much time trying to prove black is white.