Why do people deny evolution?

Im not bailing on you... Im going trout fishing down on the Octoraro Creek

why don't we have any standard function of porbabilsitic distribution of that?

Good question, but why stop at that? Why don't we have any standard function of porbabilsitic distribution of anything?

the posswibility of any determinism.

I think it highly porbabilistic, in fact, there is a distict posswibilility that I have been superceded as resident neologist

Herald wrote:

the posswibility of any determinism.

Agreed, we could all do without determinisms getting their posswibilities out and sticking them under our noses.

You should stand for election.

(Cept me and some dumass fish)

Phenotypic plasticity, the capacity of a single genotype to exhibit variable phenotypes in different environments, is common in insects and is often highly adaptive...Plasticity is important because it is an encompassing model to understand life on earth, it can increase fitness, generate novelty, and facilitate evolution...Phenotypic plasticity, through its ecological effects, can facilitate evolutionary change and speciation.

...phenotypic plasticity is universal among living things and derived from the fact that environments vary. These environmental changes, be they temporal, spatial, abiotic, or biotic, are challenging because they can destabilize homeostasis and development, and disrupt the match between an organism’s phenotype and the environment, thereby lowering fitness.

Barbara lectured widely on her research, but her findings were far ahead of their time. Because acceptance of her work met such resistance, she stopped publishing accounts of her research on “jumping genes” after 1953. She felt she risked alienating the scientific mainstream, and in 1973, she wrote: “One must await the right time for conceptual change.” It was only after similar elements were discovered in E. coli many years later, that her work was fully accepted by the scientific community.

I understand I am here this evening because the maize plant, with which I have worked for many years, revealed a genetic phenomenon that was totally at odds with the dogma of the times, the mid-nineteen forties. Recently, with the general acceptance of this phenomenon, I have been asked, notably by young investigators, just how I felt during the long period when my work was ignored, dismissed, or aroused frustration.

At first, I must admit, I was surprised and then puzzled, as I thought the evidence and the logic sustaining my interpretation of it, were sufficiently revealing. It soon became clear, however, that tacit assumptions - the substance of dogma - served as a barrier to effective communication....

New techniques made it possible to realize that the phenomenon was universal, but this was many years later. In the interim I was not invited to give lectures or seminars, except on rare occasions, or to serve on committees or panels, or to perform other scientists' duties

the possWibility of any determinism.

You should stand for election.

It has been shown that one AMF [Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi] can produce genotypically novel offspring with proportions of different nucleotypes.

We hypothesized that (1) AMF respond rapidly to a change of environment (plant host) through changes in the frequency of nucleotypes; (2) genotypically novel offspring exhibit different genetic responses to environmental change than the parent; and (3) genotypically novel offspring exhibit a wide range of phenotypic plasticity to a change of environment....

We conclude that AMF have the ability to rapidly produce variable progeny, increasing their probability to produce offspring with different fitness than their parents and, consequently, their potential adaptability to new environmental conditions.

izzythepush wrote:

the possWibility of any determinism.

Forget about the typo - why don't you concentrate on the semantics?

Forget about the typo

1. Fatal system error No.1: The Evolution of the Stars is most probably not causing the apperance of Life in the Universe, otherwise you will have to show the 60 ÷ 70 civillisations that must be existing in theory only in our Galaxy. What about the Universe? Where are they ... and where are we?

2. The Evolution should clarify to itself at first, and then to the world, whether it is operating on stochastics or on determinisim. If it operates on stochastics, how does it generate PNA, and after that (all of a suddent and out of nowhere and by reason unknown) changes to DNA ... and why don't we have any standard function of porbabilsitic distribution of that?

3. If it is determinism - who/what is the rulemaker and why Life cannot be created in the lab from scratch (inorganic matter and stochastic processes within some space, entirely insulated from the biosphere)?

I can tell you how far have we gone with FBM in terms of the Big Bang 'theory', but unfortunately this thread here is exclusively about evolution.
BTW this thread here is trying to suggestologise(SIC) the attitude to the issue, by attaching as 'keyword' mental health to the theme dening evolution with the sole intention to provide infinite competitive advantage to the people that are 'confirming' the Evolution, and to place in utmost uncomfortanle position the opponents. This actually is a glaring example of how some people, who prenet to be the greatest scientists for any age, are missing elementary things, like scientfic integrity, for example.