Why do people deny evolution?

Man o man. NOBODY denies 'science'!!!

There is at the moment no real 'science'

So , you are talking bollocks.

The idea of the libtard rhetoric here is to equate denial of a brain-dead and overwhelmingly debunked junk-science-based ideological doctrine, with denying "science"...

It is time people start realizing that our 'science' is nothing more then an manipulating tool.

My o my. see how good it works!

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience (is in fact met.

Popper's criteria (unfalsifiability) is the standard definition of pseudoscience. It means that if there is no test which could conceivably falsify a theory or idea, then that idea is outside of the realm of science and should be termed pseudoscience. In the case of evolution/evolutionism, that criteria is met simply due to the conduct of the devotees themselves.

Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:


The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

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 infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. 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, it's even worse than that. 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.

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.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal. There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

Amongst the things which could not possibly evolve, a place of honor is reserved for the flight feather.

Down feathers provide insulation and protection, that's all they do.

Flight feathers feature a complex system of barbules and hooks to create the structural strength to bear weight; that could not possibly evolve.

Flight feathers pivot (like venetian blind slats) so as to open on upstrokes and close on down-strokes. That could not possibly evolve.

Flight feathers are asymmetric; the short side locks and the long side traps air. That could not possibly evolve.

Flight feathers occur only on a bird's wings where they are needed. If flight feathers had evolved, they'd be all over the creature's body i.e. there'd be a general replacement of the down feathers.

Flying birds require ultra high efficiency hearts and lungs, unlike anything else in the living world. No way to claim that evolved.

Birds require different balance parameters than other creatures, so that no other creature moves on land the way birds do and that would have been a huge disadvantage prior to being fully developed.

Likewise having your arms evolving into wings would be a giant disadvantage. The whole change from a coelurosaur to a flying bird would have to have happened in one generation, which is another probabilistic miracle. That is, in order for the creature not to die out in the middle of some 10,000-generation evolutionary process from arms to wings, the whole thing would have to happen in one generation...

An evolving "proto bird" would be an effortlessly free meal for every predator which ever saw it.

C.S. Lewis noted that above all else, the devil cannot abide being mocked.

Evolutionites are basically immune to logic and reasoned argument; you can see this by observing their conduct on Internet forums like this one. The trick therefore is simply to teach the world to laugh at them and at their ideology. Evolution will begin to leave our world when it becomes impossible for a teacher or professor to stand in front of a classroom and talk about it without being made to feel as if he were in a Rodney Dangerfield movie, and seeing eyes roll back and hearing snickering in the room. At that point, other than for talk about it in libtard faculty lounges, it will start to go away. There will be one final generation of evolosers which will have to die out from old age, and that will be it.

@gungasnake

Very good postings!

I don't have the patience anymore to do it like that.

And don't you have to laugh at FBI oeps FBM with regards to his projection of
knee-jerk reflex. It is getting to the point of being hilarious.

That quote, out f context is not what the book is about. We have all been introduced to mny mechanisms of adaptation. You really have to read the whole thing to see that she has been talking about the dropping of the gene centered evolution of Hldne ND THE NEO dARWINIANS (WHOSE disciples of today included DAwkins and MAYNARD and Mayr)

As far as my 'distinction of the differences between neo nd "strai" darwinian evolution, her chapter in Darwin reviited needs to be "set up" by reading the work (s opposed to hunting down "bumper stickers")

You are confucing Neo Darwinian with strict Darwinian. Evolution acting on random mutation, although a two prt step process is sorta BACKWARDS >The genes come FTER thesmall steps of adaptation.
Thats why her Gaiast hypothesis equates the environment to hich adaptation occurs is as important as the organisms adapting.

Its really not that earth shaking nd , because GAIA has hd such a silly connotation mong the antiscience crowd , its really an unfortunate term.

Moran can say anything. I go by what Margulis wrote. PLEASE read "acquiring genomes" you are just extracting clips that need the several chpters of set up to get what she means

Oh no!! and in a few minutes we will see punctuated equilibrium, right?!

what a mess! Unbelievable!!!

Many people "get it wrong" about Margulis. She was vocally savaging NEO DARWINIAN thinking (The Dawkins contingent)> She considered herself a strict Darwinian (s per the points I presented).he original hypothesis or endosymbiosis is pretty much ccepted nowadays , but she was considered real crqckpot when she proposed it in the late 1960's. She stated that all units of higher organismal structure (like mitochondria and other unit cellls) were once free living organisms.

As far as her GAia "theory" we still were waiting for convincing evidence when she died .

She tried to correlate too many things in her mind from so many disciplines that were coming up with new arenas of study (epigenetics, Continental drift, transfer of genes via viral infections etc etc) I think she was too much affected by her husband's nimble mind(totally personal piece of bullshit )

Farmer, I just speculated that:


That does in fact appear to mirror what Margulis herself offered to explain the difference she perceived between herself and Neo-Darwinists, and how she agreed with Darwin. She said:


http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/lynn-margulis-d.html

Darwin thought important information about the origins of variation is missing. and so does she. According to her, Neo-Darwinists don't believe that. That's the difference. But that's a long way from claiming that her suggestion was that we had to "get back to Darwin" in any theoretical sense. She doesn't go there in her theoretical views at all.

What happened with your scientific integrity? Even if you are proxy scientist, as you obviously are, publishing and speaking what is convenient to the mastermind, you should have some scientific integrity.

     You are very good in the design of strawmen, aren't you? You should have become a top designer, rather than writhing of presenting yourself as proxy scientist ... having some personal problems with the aliens.

why not? we start from points of a base of information. Darwin made a few doofus projctions
1Separate sources of evolution for what we call "convergent species" He didnt know about continental drift

2His "heritability of fitness" would dilute within about 6 generations and he never had an explanation nor any ideas about that.Nor did this give him any help when trying to come up with a source for new variation.


MArhulis, as I said before, was a Darwinist but her ideas of acquiring entire genomes by infection or symbiotic transfer and her assertions
about her own form of Gaia, were her unique areas of considering the sources of new species.She agrred with IE Wallin in his Symbioticism, source for new species

Her hypotheses are all neat to speculate upon, however, there still is no real evidence that what shes said is even possible.
Perhaps, with the new works in epigenetics, she may have some evidence for her legacy.

She did not, as one of the articles of hers which I quoted made clear, believe in the "universal common ancestor" which Darwin posited, either, and that is major tenet of both his and the Neo-Darwinists.

Some people act as though if you say you're "not a Darwinist," then you're saying that you don't believe in "evolution." Margulis certainly did (believe in evolution) so in that (inappropriate) sense, she was a "Darwinist."

One thing no one can dispute about Darwin: he was anything but a dogmatist. He did not try to conceal his doubt or lack of knowledge. And he presented his theories as tentative, subject to proof after investigation (not as a priori correct or self-evident). Margulis admires that aspect of the man, and many others, no doubt. But when she says she's a "Darwinist," I think she just means that in the broadest sense: She believes in evolution and she does not believe a supernatural cause is needed to explain it.

That's fine, but it's not really saying much about any substantial similarities between her and Darwin as far as concrete theory goes. If there was any sense in which she wanted to "get back to Darwin," she was just talking about an open-minded spirit of inquiry regarding things that are not known, as opposed to the strict dogmatism she perceived in the Neo-Darwinists.

As far as an "open mind" she was quite dogmatic about the concept of karyotic "consortia" wherein the exchange of genetic information in the Neo Archean through the proterozoic, is an assertion. When all the organisms line up against the wall, we can see that the concept of supergenera common ancestry is being slowly unraveled.

Theres nothing though that Margulis has posited that is convincingly evidenced (at ;east to me)
Her stories of Mayrs evolution of the eye and "sabre toothedness" no more than does the evolution of arms, forelegs, wings, or fins does.