Why do people deny evolution?

I read the wiki article. Very informative. That said, you didn't really answer the question I asked.

Genes, as I understand the concept, are not "things." They are not some molecule, or anything else with a strictly material content. Genes are, in essence, simply "information." It certainly wouldn't be surprising if taking away some information used by a critter would alter it's behavior. So what does "genetically controlled" really mean? If you remove a person's brain, they can't think. If you remove their lungs, they can't breathe. If you remove all oxygen from their environment, they can't survive for long. Does that mean that their existence is "oxygen-controlled," or merely oxygen dependent?

Let me ask that second question (I still haven't got an answer to my first one--does the spider "know" the purpose it's web will serve) in a different way:

A car will not take you from Florida to California if it doesn't have certain things, like wheels, tires, axles, pistons, carburetors, spark plugs, etc. "Knock out" any of those essentials features, and it aint goin nowhere.

That said, even if it does have those thing, it STILL aint goin nowhere, unless you start it up and drive it. It won't drive to California on it's own initiative. You will direct it there, looking at road maps, roads signs, adding needed gas, etc., all along the way. The car has no "purpose." But you do. See what I'm getting at?

Point is, I wouldn't call the car "gas-controlled" or "piston-controlled," or anything like that. I would call it "people-controlled" insofar as it's going anywhere.

genes are also a means with which an organosm reacts. Behavior is much more difficult to sort out as compared to some biochemical reaction (like the various enzymatic chains for blood clotting in organisms or milk production in mammals).


When oxygen first arose as a sort of "environmental contaminant" the original respiration tricks involved many means of exploiting this gas besides lungs. We can follow the evidence of how and when organisms adapted to the increasing volumetric pwrcent of oxygen contained in water and then in the atmosphere.
SO, in answer to the question, organism success was both Oxygen dependent and oxygen controlled. (we saw through history that deep ocean organisms adapted to different levels of oxygen as well as various means of delivery. On land, we saw that organisms adapted to best exploit increasing oxygen (for any given time), by becoming huge lungless , spiracle breathing creatures to(separately) evolving lungs by specially adapting one of their bouyancy sacs . Then, as O2 plummeted a bit, adaptation via a surface area schema was tried until O2 rebounded

Thats the realm of the ethology guys. I dont know "what is conciousness" (not many fossils until we saw some dirty cave pictures)

does a prson know that hes going to California?

I guess youre point is a bit vague. A cars not a biological entity. Its merely another spider web made by a very clever spider

Yeah, he knows that, if that's where he intends to go.

Well, is a limb, such as, say, an arm, a "biological entity?" What about the hand, that can be made into a fist, on the end of that arm? If I punch some bastard in the mouth for trying to horn in on the Babe I got my sights set on at the bar, is that "arm-c0ntrolled?" You say my point is "vague." I was asking for clarification from you regarding what is meant by "genetically-controlled" (or however you put it, exactly).

I was asking a question, not trying to answer one.

It also gave rise to the Judge's wonderful phrase of "Breathtaking Inanity", which (as a quick Googling will show) is deservedly synonymous with Intelligent Design and Creationism.

ID and Creationism, along with Denial of Evolution, is Breathtaking Inanity.

Most people make the mistake that if someone denies 'evolutioon' then it is because that person is into creationism or ID.

However this is utterly bollocks, because there are for certain people who don't accept the extremely stupid theory of evolution, and are als NO into creationisme or ID!

So, your 'argument' is invalid.

you seem to be confusing homology with behavior. I cant help you since I really am not sure where your going with this.

"Arm controlled" is kind of a meaningless term really. So Im gonna have to punt.

Alwys a pleasure though.

Well, there are alwys the "space aliens did everything" guys who have their own show on the "History Channel"

(The quotes are my incredulity marks at what this entire network has become), a feast for morons who will buy into anything without thought or evidence

Alright, man. I've had a few exchanges with you and as far as I can recall, I've consistently been mutually respectful. I've politely explained why I don't agree with or don't understand some of the things you say. But then you apparently get insulted and then insulting when I don't jump on board with whatever you're claiming. I don't enjoy or benefit from such exchanges. True, there are one or two idjits around here that I do occasionally insult, but only after they've repeatedly posted seriously knobjockey (my new favorite word) kinda crap. I don't want to add you to that list. If you can't maintain a mutually respectful exchange with me, then I'll just not respond to you anymore. Ball's in your court.

Just after Quahog Posts, Stephan PAstis has his comic strip for today

First off, FBM, let me apologize if you were offended. Having apologized, I still can't see why you interpreting me stating the obvious as "disrespect." If that's disrespect to you, then I don't know what wouldn't be. Let's review the posts, as I saw them.

1. I specifically refer the Everett (many worlds) multi-verse interpretation of QM as a case where physicists believe in magic. To support my claim, I give a wiki site which both (1) explains the many worlds supposition and (2) says it is a "mainstream" interpretation of QM.
2. You then ask for evidence that physicists believe it.
3. I had just given it to you, so it seemed quite clear that, despite me providing the citation to the evidence you either neglected or refused to look at it.
4. This was somewhat exasperating, especially in light of the fact that, for anyone familiar with QM interpretations, that would be like asking for "evidence" that the year is currently 2015.
5. Exasperation notwithstanding, I didn't say a word. I simply gave you the evidence all over again. I showed you:
a. How to make your own independent investigation if you wanted (showing you the words to type into google), AND
b. I referred you back to the evidence I had just given, AND
c. I gave you yet a new specific site, which discussed the topic at great length AND
d. specifically quoted an excerpt from it which said that multiverse theories were "considered seriously in physics," AND
e. In a new post specifically pointed out what the second site said AND
f. Gave you yet another source of information where many quotes had been posted, evidence "belief" in such crap by physicists.
6. So, at that point I had shown you the evidence (of the already obvious) MANY times over. So what do YOU say at that point? This:
7. "So you're just making a bold assertion without supporting evidence. OK. "

WHAT!? I went to all that effort, all those times, to spoon-feed you with "evidence" of something that never should have been in dispute to begin with, and you can only say THAT!? So in response I merely point out the ovious, to wit:

8. "So you're just being a wise-ass who ignores the import of everything I say. OK."
9. You come back with this: "I'm just calmly point out that you're not presenting any evidence..,that physicists believe in it."
10. Now my exasperation is complete, and my long-tested patience is running short. Unless you are either lying, or just a total DENIALIST, how could you possibly claim that at this point???
11. So I state the obvious, so wit: "Then you're just demonstrating your willful attempt to remain ignorant by refusing to read, understand, or acknowledge any of the direct quotes I've have provided, or the articles I have referred you to."

Y9u take that as utter DISRESPECT, and suggest that you will no longer respond to me if I don't somehow change, I guess. I don't get it. Unless, for you, anyone who doesn't choose to join you in ignoring the evidence and denying the obvious is "disrespecting" you, maybe.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Possible-Impossible-James-Coppedge/dp/0310224918

Why would you think I was confusing the two? Your response was that a car is not a "biological entity," so, again, I was asking for clarification from you as to how you thought that was relevant to the issue being discussed (what "genetically-controlled" means).

My point is this: if EVERY necessary condition for life is ALSO deemed to be a "controlling' condition, then it becomes meaningless and tautological to say that such necessary conditions are "controlling." There would be an almost infinite number of things "in control."

You say you don't know where I'm heading. You don't?

You say you don't know what a spider knows. Fair enough, I don't either. What I do know is that web-spinning it inherently teleological (purposeful) given the circumstances. If it's not in the spider's "consciousness," then where does it come from? That's my question.

I don't have it "in my genes" to go to California tomorrow, but if I decide to do that, my arrival there at a later time will not be "accidental." It will be the end-result of a teleological process.

Where's does this come from? From random mutation and natural selection? What "mutations" would make a purposeless animal act purposefully?

time my friend, and miniscule heritable changes. Hard to fathom?

because one side is the structure and the other side (of your point) is its use. Function follows form follows function.

The point of the "knock out genes" in a spiders life is that, of the seven or so spinerrettes (that produce seven or more different hapes and viscoities of silk), when a series of genes are "turned off" , an ORB SPIDER aimlessly wanders around dripping silk and produces a Funnel Web spiders messy web and not the orb weavers work.

Now, how did that function develop, I dont know, but Im sure someone os claiming that its an "Irreducible complexity"


As far as your point about a car, I must be in the slow lane today because I have NO IDEA what youre getting at.

Or are you invoking rev Paley?

You were from the outset begging the question about the Many Worlds interpretation as being magic. You presented that ipse dixit and refused to consider justifying that claim. When I pointed that out, you started name-calling. If you're intent on resorting to ad homs when you're caught in a logical bind, I will not enjoy discussions with you and will have no motivation to engage you further.

This is wrong.



This is also completely wrong.

I never "refused" to discuss the magical aspect, nor did I present it as mere ipse dixit. I gave, both before and after we first discussed it, very specific reasons why it was tantamount to magic. If you want to discuss that, I stand willing to do so at any time.

HOWEVER: You insisted on "evidence" of TWO things, one of which was clearly stated to be that any phyisicts actually believed in the many worlds interpretation. I was merely trying to handle one question at a time. Your response stated, quite explicitly, that I had presented no evidence whatsoever on either issue. That was simply FALSE, but you insisted on it. You didn't bring up a remaining question while acknowledging my evidence on the other. You simply ignored it all.

The "many worlds" theory, and all the other "multiverse" theories in physics, have all the supernatural and magical aspects to them as do the claims that dead souls go to heaven or hell and/or that God exists "in the sky" somewhere. I will be happy to defend that position even further than I already have, if you question it.

Ionus first, then you, claimed that you could provide a list of scientists who believe in magic. I asked you (and Ionus) to provide a list of them. You haven't done so. Instead, you made the bold assertion that the Many Worlds interpretation is magic, and therefore physicists believe in magic. I asked you if scientists agree that the Many World interpretation is magic. I can't find any who do, and you haven't shown me any evidence that physicists think that the MWI is magic. I don't want to argue whether or not it is magic, I'm asking if physicists believe that it is, and if so, who they are.

Really?


No, not at all. I thought I made that clear, but let me restate it. You can "knock out" the spark plugs, battery, or whatever part of running car, and it will no longer run. This is analogous to the DNA or other genetic makeup of a spider. Without it, the spider can't function.

But that's not the end of the story.

Because even if you DON'T knock out any working parts, the car still won't go anywhere on it's own. It needs a driver to operate and direct it. It may well be the same with the spider. Having the correct DNA (informational data-base) is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, condition for the spider to spin webs. Something else has to act to implement and utilize that information in a productive way. Such thing as Shapiro identifies and explains, for example. The data is there to be interpreted, sure, but it still takes something TO interpret it.

A book on a shelf may be full of potential information. That information is NOT the page it's printed on. It is NOT the ink which forms the letters on the page. It is NOT even the words and sentences per se. The book can lay there forever and not a single iota of information will ever "just come out of it." For any kind of information exchange, there must be a party to be informed who can actually understand and decipher the meaning of the words, and translate the information so obtained into concrete action. Same with DNA, which is strictly passive, like a book on a shelf, in that sense.

The issue being discussed was your response that the whole thing was "genetically controlled" together with a referral to an article on gene knockout. It was your response that I was addressing, not Rev. Paley.