Why do people deny evolution?

@martinies,

No, we aren't a type of monkey. We are a type of ape. What everyone "knows" seems to elude your knowledge.

@parados,

Seems like the majority of common knowledge is a mystery to this one.

0 Replies

@parados,

An ape is a type of monkey . Man is an evolved animal that is my point. The important thing is the spirit uses death to shape life forms.

1 Reply

@martinies,

Apes and monkeys are both primates but an ape is not a monkey.

1 Reply

@FBM,

According to the theory of common ancestry, ALL living organisms are related, whether plant, animal, bacteria, or whatever. So NOW we know what causes Down's Syndrome, eh? Individuals born with this setback (encephalitis, aka mongolian idiots, aka "watermelon heads") are obviously favoring genes they acquired from water melons. They, or more precisely, their parents, just didn't evolve past the time when they were water melons. Pretty simple, actually.

0 Replies

@FBM,

It seems that the "conclusion" offered by the presenters of this information is not really any kind of conclusion, but merely a restatement of the findings.

Quote:

We tested the hypothesis that vertical disc herniation preferentially affects individuals with vertebrae that are towards the ancestral end of the range of shape variation within Homo sapiens and therefore are less well adapted for bipedalism.

OK, so they have a hypothesis. Something akin, perhaps, to the hypothesis that Fords more closely resemble Chervolets than they do BMW's. Now what?

Quote:

The results support the hypothesis that intervertebral disc herniation preferentially affects individuals with vertebrae that are towards the ancestral end of the range of shape variation within H. sapiens and therefore are less well adapted for bipedalism.

The wording is virtually identical. What has been added by this "conclusion?" Nothing that I can see, except "we went out and compared Chevys, Fords, and BMW's and, sho nuff, Fords are closer to Chevys than BMW's"

Why is that?

They don't say, but reporters apparently do. What else is new?

If you want to call that a "hypothesis," then what ain't? I have a hypothesis that grass is green. My "hypothesis" turns out to be correct!!! When is my Nobel Prize gunna be awarded, I wonder?

1 Reply

@parados,

They are closely related apes and monkeys then. And that is not to mention your orangutans. The animal world has a constant and that constant is consciousness . Animals might change form but there consciousness is the exact same across all forms. Spirit and consciousness being the same thing.

1 Reply

@layman,

The hypothesis they tested is the exact same one they reached a conclusion about so of course the wording is the same.

Let's give you an example....

My hypothesis is that layman is not as stupid as he looks.

After running a series of tests I then reach a conclusion:

Upon testing I find that my hypothesis that layman is not as stupid as he looks is correct.

OR

Upon testing I find that my hypothesis that layman is not as stupid as he looks is wrong.

In both cases my hypothesis is the same even though the conclusions are opposite. In no way does restating my hypothesis show I had circular reasoning in reaching my conclusion.

1 Reply

@martinies,

Orangutans are apes.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

In both cases my hypothesis is the same even though the conclusions are opposite.

It's not a question of circular reasoning. There is simply no hypothetical causal connection suggested here. How did some (hinted at, but not stated) recessive gene last tens of thousands of years without also being present in all prior generations? Any analysis of this being offered? Uhhh, no.

Parados, in science, a statement of observable fact, by itself, does NOT raise to the level of dignity which we give to a "hypothesis." A true hypothesis will posit an EXPLANATORY suggestion for the cause of the "facts" we see.

Any viable hypothesis will also have further logical implications, which can separately be tested.

Maybe you can't see the difference, but scientific theory does.

1 Reply

@parados,

Chimpanzees must apes then. Not that it matters . What does matter is consciousness is the same across the animal kingdom including man. And consciousness could be difined as spirit.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

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

If you're gunna throw "caused by natural selection" into that mix, it is kinda "hard to fathom," ya know? As I said before:

Quote:

For some, merely uttering the words "natural selection" is presented as though it were some kind of magical incantation that resolves all questions. It serves as a talisman that repels all threats to orthodox evolutionary theory, and as a virtually omnipotent actor that can accomplish just about anything, no matter how seemingly impossible. Kinda like God, ya know?

Even hard-nosed, mathematically-inclined, evolutionists, like those practicing population genetics, find the "natural selection" explanation unpalatable. Neutral genetic drift alone, from a math standpoint, can completely overwhelm any influences purportedly due to "natural selection." This is especially true when one uses "natural selection" to "explain" the creation of entirely new species.

1 Reply

@layman,

I guess when you completely misrepresent their work you can make that argument. When I look at the work, I see nowhere where they said there is a recessive gene that was not present in prior generations. Where did you get the information that the ancestors of those pathological humans didn't have a gene? Where did you get the information that the authors claimed some recessive gene caused the pathology?

1 Reply

@layman,

AHH Haldane's dilemma updated!!

Also, no I wasnt going to add natural selection (since it is a conclusion )

If evidence supports, talk it up, if not, talk it down.
As I recall, evolution first occurs individual by individual and most evidence shows that most all evolution is adaptive. That includes niche filling .

NOW if you can provide supportive evidence how natural selection does NOT occur, youd have a paper there.
So far, all the Post ALtenberg 'new worldviewers " are doing it by arm waving and postulate posing

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

When I look at the work, I see nowhere where they said there is a recessive gene that was not present in prior generations

My point exactly. That was just an example of something they DON'T say.

Quote:

Where did you get the information that the authors claimed some recessive gene caused the pathology?

They didn't, that's the point. They do, however attempt to vaguely and weakly suggest that "evolutionary biology" is somehow important:

Quote:

This finding not only has clinical implications but also illustrates the benefits of bringing the tools of evolutionary biology to bear on problems in medicine and public health.

What "tool" was supposedly used here?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

NOW if you can provide supportive evidence how natural selection does NOT occur, youd have a paper there.

As I've said over and over, Farmer, NOBODY that I know of suggests that natural selection doesn't "occur." And I didn't say anything different in that last post. It is the ROLE of natural selection that is questioned. It undoubtedly serves to cull out certain individuals and it probably has a role in maintaining a species' genetic make-up.

But a "creative force" which serves to "direct" evolution? That's the part that gets disputed.

Quote:

As I recall, evolution first occurs individual by individual and most evidence shows that most all evolution is adaptive.

I have no doubt you recall having been told that. Being told and actually relying on "all the evidence" are two different things, though.

Many theorists clearly claim that very FEW prevailing traits are "adaptive." They are merely neutral or "nearly neutral' (slightly deleterious).

1 Reply

@layman,

Youre quoting the "What Darwin Got Wrong" stuff. They didnt have any structured evidence worthy of discussion either.

At this point its arm waving that I tend not to engage in. Yet you were the one accusing me of being "old school" by not bandwagoning for youre (apparently) closely held belief that everyone that denies natural selection's role is in touch with some uniersaal truth .

Youve kinda exposed your own worldview several times. Im just wrapping up here.

After all, its just a theory isnt that your thinking?

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You're quoting the "What Darwin Got Wrong" stuff. They...

Actually, I'm not "quoting" anybody and I don't know who "they" are supposed to be in your post. I'm thinking of evolutionary theorists like Kimura (and his successors) and Lynch (the prominent population geneticist from Indiana U).

Quote:

After all, its just a theory isnt that your thinking?

What do you mean by "it?" Neo-Darwinism? Are you suggesting that it is NOT a theory?

0 Replies

@layman,

Evolutionary biology doesn't require a recessive gene. That is your claim. Back it up.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Evolutionary biology doesn't require a recessive gene. That is your claim. Back it up.

That was NOT my claim. Read the post again. I've already explained the point I'm making several times, so I won't bother to do it again.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know