Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

I'm not really familiar with the details of her gaia hypothesis, but it certainly sounds quite speculative on it's face, and I'm not at all inclined to "buy it." Then again, John Maynard Smith is quoted as saying; "Every science needs Lynn Margulis... I think she is often wrong, but... she's wrong in such fruitful ways. I'm sure she's mistaken about Gaia, too. But I must say, she was crashingly right once, but many of us thought she was wrong then, too."

But that isn't even the issue, as far as I'm concerned. The point is that, despite decades of harsh criticism, ridicule, and outright rejection of her endosymbiotic theory, she persisted because she was capable of "thinking outside the box." And the modern synthesis does indeed attempt to contain evolutionary ideas inside a very small "box" on the basis of an ideological doctrine which precedes, not follows, experimental evidence.

Her complaint that adherence to neo-darwinism attempts to limit, rather than encourage, research, seems to have some validity to me. To repeat a quote from her which I posted earlier:

Quote:

We agree that very few potential offspring ever survive to reproduce and that populations do change through time, and that therefore natural selection is of critical importance to the evolutionary process. But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric...Then how did one species evolve into another? This profound research question is assiduously undermined by the hegemony who flaunt their "correct" solution.

1 Reply

@layman,

Smith and Dawkins needed Margulis, not most science. Im dancing around devils advocacy regarding Margulis because as bunch of my graad students came up with a bit of "coup" in that the testaability and falsifiability of endosymbiosis and Gaia dont exist.Almost everything shes said can be explained by homology or analogy. Her biggest advance, (qnd it may have been a collaboration to when she and Carl Sagan were married), was the concept of INTERDISCIPLANARY studies of natural sciences.

In a recap, have you looked over the "science skeptics" site you posted? any comments re whether they are Darwinists, NeoDarwinists or just plain IDers looking to carve up the science bases of evolution??

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Invisible beings teleporting instructions for the structure of the universe from billions of years ago?
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.

It's your claim, not a strawman. Do you want me to quote you from the other thread? "My personal are 45%..." You seriously think that aliens teleporting the structure of the universe from billions of years ago is a sane position to take? You don't see why rational people think you're

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/ewacky.gif

Wow.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

In a recap, have you looked over the "science skeptics" site you posted? any comments re whether they are Darwinists, NeoDarwinists or just plain IDers looking to carve up the science bases of evolution??

You mean the Discovery Institute, Farmer? Not really, at least not lately. But, truth be told, I just look at ID'ers to be on the other end of the metaphysical spectrum as Neo-Darwinists. Opposite sides of the same doctrinal coin, ya know? Two peas in a pod, really.

If you can take Neo-Darwinists seriously, as a starting point, then you have the kind of mentality that could also take intelligent design seriously, as a starting point, I figure. The nature of the attraction is the same, whichever side you choose. They're just polar opposites, really. For that reason, I really don't pay much attention to whose "side" someone is on. They both have their agendas to promote, and "faith" seems to be at the bottom of it all, as far as I can see.

If it wasn't for Neo-Darwinists, ID'ers wouldn't have much to talk about. Even strong advocates of naturalistic evolution have noted that the extremism of hardline Neo-Darwinists is an easy target for ID'ers. It's just one extreme against another. Chances are quite great, I figure, that the real answer lies somewhere in the middle.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Consciousness is the god in all life forms. Its from consciousness that we get conscience.

1 Reply

@martinies,

Consciousness is the god that all life forms exist inside of.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

It's your claim, not a strawman.

     Yes, it was my rough mistake to tell to people like you some numbers, for you are unable to see anything beyond the numbers. Besides that you think that you have hit the jackpot here, and that you can misuse by quoting that assumption and misinterpreting it to infinity.
     The truth of the matter is that you can neither explain the infinity of your virtual temperature & gravity, nor why is that - what are the force carriers, the material carriers, and their causality. I don't dare to ask about launching of any Time yet.
     Your sole argument to that is always my assumed probability for the existence of ILFs - which is very strange as an approach for scientific integrity.

1 Reply

@Herald,

No, your first mistake was believing such crap in the first place. Posting it was second. Laughing

I'm not doing science and have never claimed to be. I'm doing basic logic to show how terribly your claims about aliens and teleportation suck balls compared to the standard (read: sane) cosmogony.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

compared to the standard (read: sane) cosmogony.

LOL BUT you don't see the big huge holes in it? and how utterly wrong it is???

WHY, OH WHY do you uncritically believe so much bollocks?

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Death is the changer of life forms by evolution and death is what consciousness is. So its consciouness that changes life forms by evolution. Death sculptures life forms to fit in with the convenience of the event in terms of survival.

1 Reply

@martinies,

Quote:

Death is the changer of life forms by evolution and death is what consciousness is. So its consciouness that changes life forms by evolution. Death sculptures life forms to fit in with the convenience of the event in terms of survival.

What you don't seem to understand is that EVERYTHING has or is consciousness. Yep, plants, rocks, and so on and so forth.
NOTHING can exist without any form of consciousness.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

That is exactly what I am saying here. Death is alive as conciousness. And its death as consciousness that sculuptures the event and event life forms. Unmoving death causes moving life form change.

2 Replies

@martinies,

ok ok then!

0 Replies

W can put it this way!

http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Untitled-17-587x390.jpg

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Yep its a question of identity.

1 Reply

@martinies,

agreed!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

God and death the cause are stationary to moving life and change so that the cause although omni present to all action remains detach from the moving and changing event things.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

No, your first mistake was believing such crap in the first place.

Can you tell us everything that you know about 'that crap'?

FBM wrote:

Posting it was second.

Yes, it was a rough mistake to start discussing such things with presuming & overweening priests of the scientism. Fatal system error - it may happen to everyone.

FBM wrote:

I'm doing basic logic to show how terribly your claims about aliens and teleportation suck balls

Your 'basic logic' is light years away from the nearest formal model. Anyway.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Can you tell us everything that you know about 'that crap'?

No sweat:

1) You have provided no evidence for your claim.
2. Your attempts at reasoning with regards to your claim are rife with logical fallacies.

Nothing else is needed until you correct these errors. Fail.

0 Replies

@martinies,

martinies wrote:

That is exactly what I am saying here. Death is alive as conciousness. And its death as consciousness that sculuptures the event and event life forms. Unmoving death causes moving life form change.

You have been watching too many zombie movies.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know