Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

Layman is a smart ass, an intelligent man I think, but he has no formal training in science and doesn't understand the most basic concepts there. As his ID implies by the way; he's transparent about it.

I guess it's part of his take on life: the specialists are only fooling themselves... only the laypeople can see the truth... this kind of tripe.

The problem is that it's not true... His lack of scientific training simply limits his capacity to understand these topics. He will disagree with the most trivial point and go on tangents that are nor here nor there. He will misunderstand everything you say. And he will forget what you told him from one day to the next, because he lacks the conceptual infrastructure in which to store scientific info. It's all in a big lose bag in his head. So he is smart but not knowledgeable, and incapable to learn more.

1 Reply

@layman,

You were so good at reading that entire study and poking holes in it by bringing up "recessive genes" which had nothing to do with the research or the conclusions. I'll bet you can read Horton Hears a Who and tell us how rhino's hearing isn't that good.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You were so good at reading that entire study and poking holes in it by bringing up "recessive genes" which had nothing to do with the research or the conclusions.

Once again you demonstrate your inability to read and/or comprehend. I wasn't trying to "poke holes" in ANY hypothesis, because there is no hypothesis in the scientific sense. Recessive genes were merely mentioned in passing as an illustrative example of the KIND of thing they were NOT addressing. They have no hypothesis, that was, and is, the only point.

1. I have a "scientific hypothesis" that grass in green
2. I asked 20 people to look at grass and tell me what color they saw. They all said "green."
3. Therefore, these "findings" are consistent with my "hypothesis" that "grass is green.

You appear to think that this example constitutes some kind of scientific endeavor. Fraid not.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Ollie, don't start again. You are the one who has proven that he has no understanding of such basic concepts as the implications of Galilean relativity, frames of reference in SR, Newtonian calculations of gravitational forces in the solar system, etc. The amazing thing is that, like Max, you actually think you do know. Like him, though, you seem incapable of explaining, discussing or even answering simple questions about, the basis for that which you think you "know."

1 Reply

@layman,

What specifically was the "no hypothesis" they tested then? Why did they do actual comparisons to reach their conclusions?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

What specifically was the "no hypothesis" they tested then? Why did they do actual comparisons to reach their conclusions?

Parados, I suggest that you go read something about what constitutes a scientific theory or hypothesis. You are completely fooled by the mere use (inappropriately) of the word "hypothesis" by these authors.

Why did I make comparisons to reach my conclusion that people have Down's Syndrome because they are "related" to watermelons. I'm sure you didn't get the point then, or now, of course.

1 Reply

@layman,

So your argument is that it isn't an hypothesis because the answer was self evident?

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

So your argument is that it isn't an hypothesis because the answer was self evident?

No, although that also plays into it. I have already explained why. It is because no hypothetical causal explanation is even being offered.

1 Reply

@layman,

I was talking to Farm, who can usually understand what I say. As I explained, you lack the basic conceptual structure necessary to understand any of this.

1 Reply

@parados,

I have a pet rock on my desk that looks exactly like a small bone fragment that was later pieced together and shown to be part of an ancient dinosaur. This demonstrates the importance of pet rocks to evolutionary theory, eh?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

As I explained, you lack the basic conceptual structure necessary to understand any of this

Heh, as usual, Ollie, you "explained" absolutely nothing. As is your want, you simply make ill-informed self-serving pontific pronouncements without explaining a damn thing and/or providing the least bit of evidence for your arbitrary assertions.

1 Reply

@layman,

Let's see. What formal scientific training do you got?

0 Replies

@layman,

Hmmm... so an hypothesis is only valid if it gives specific cause for why something is what it is? That's interesting. So Copernicus didn't have a valid hypothesis then since he didn't propose gravity as the cause for the planets going around the sun. Very interesting. Do you have any other gems you want to drop on us about how an hypothesis isn't an hypothesis?

By the way, the hypothesis you have discounted does have a cause. It states the pathology is found in those whose spines more closely resemble other apes. It seems you didn't bother to read even the abstract, let alone the rest of the research.

1 Reply

@layman,

And how do you propose to test this hypothesis? Will you be comparing your pet rock to other pet rocks and to actual dinosaur parts? Your hypothesis while outlandish could be tested. It would require you to have more than one sample however. So, let's test it. If pet rocks are important to evolution then all pet rocks should show something similar. I would suggest you randomly take 50 pet rocks and compare them to dinosaur bones and tell us your findings.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

the hypothesis you have discounted does have a cause. It states the pathology is found in those whose spines more closely resemble other ape

Really? What is the cause? You are merely talking about a correlation, which does not say or prove anything about causation. Of what significance is the subject of apes, here? If I take a baseball bat and bust your spine into mush, you will be able to walk upright. What does that have to do with apes? You probably don't even understand why I ask that question.

As for Copernicus, he had a theory that explained the appearances we see in the planets, etc. (the motion) in terms of a theory which explained exactly how those appearances were generated (by the motion of the earth and the other planets around the sun). That is NOT a matter of mere correlation.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

And how do you propose to test this hypothesis?

There is no "hypothesis" to test, merely an off-the-wall suggestion. No purported explanation of how one could possibly be related to the other is even offered.

I can take note that both the shirt I am wearing and the sky are blue. So what? Where's the hypothesis of some connection other than similarity? What "causes" that similarity? Certainly not the mere fact that both are blue.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Of what significance is the subject of apes, here?

You clearly haven't even looked at the abstract if you ask that question. And yet you somehow feel qualified to denigrate the science?

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

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.

So you are arguing that is just an off the wall suggestion? Care to tell us what would not be off the wall?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

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

What is this saying? Really? It's simply saying that if you happen to have a vertebrae structure that is similar to an ape's, then you will have trouble walking upright. You will also have that problem if I break your spine with a baseball bat. What's the connection?

If you happen to have a head shaped like a watermelon, you will probably have difficulty thinking like a normal human being. Now what? Oh, I know!!!! I inherited that birth defect from a watermelon, that's what!

2 Replies

@layman,

The sky is part of our atmosphere. Everything on earth, including the fabric in shirts, interacts with the atmosphere in one way or another. The sky is blue. So is my shirt.

So, there ya have it, then, eh? I won't hypothesize any connection between the color of my shirt and the color of the sky.

I'll let you make the OBVIOUS connection for yourself, how's that?

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know