Why do people deny evolution?

@Leadfoot,

How long of a time frame do you think it needs to be? Do you even know how long the Cambrian period was?

0 Replies

https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/I-don-t-usually-find-religious-posts-funny-but-this-made-me-LOL.jpeg

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Too many and too fast to satisfy Darwin's own requirement of gradual change.

The Cambrian explosion wasn't really much of an explosion. It's a misnomer. The Cambrian period lasted 50 million years and the precambrian at least as long before that. It may simply be that the majority of life before the Cambrian was soft bodied and didn't fossilize easily thus obscuring the actual variety of biology available to evolve from.

But this is only a single element of the evidence for the evolution of life on this planet. I'm more interested in knowing what your core reasons are for not believing that evolution is insufficient to explain earth's biology.

What are your primary concerns or doubts concerning the theory?

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Do you have any knowledge about homo sapiens?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Yours is the longest estimate I have ever seen. The ones I've seen are between 5 and 30 million years. And yes, compared to the rate of change since first life to now, that is an explosion. ID advocates did not give it that name.

Evolution is real. It just does not explain the Cambrian.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

tak, it's me...

i have no idea about anything.

0 Replies

Because they don't understand the intricacies of their own religious theology or scientific evolutionary science so in their mind it's always boiling down to either religion or science.

1 Reply

@HesDeltanCaptain,

The observer finds himself to be part of a co incedents. Is god the cause of that co incidents that the observer finds him self to be apart of if so then the relativity in the co incidents is the god that caused the co incidents. Human relativity is love.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Yours is the longest estimate I have ever seen.

All I did was quote the geological time definitions.

Leadfoot wrote:

Evolution is real. It just does not explain the Cambrian.

The most recent evidence we have of that era fits very nicely with evolutionary theory. There is nothing to explain. There is still a lot to learn about that period of evolutionary development, but there are no pieces of evidence which conflict with existing theory, or even come close to conflicting with existing theory.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

You're wrong!

No! You're wrong!

Simple negation is not an argument.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I was talking about the period within the Cambrian period during which the major diversification occurred. That is what is relavant to the discussion of life since we are not concerned with geology here.

Here is the Wikipedia entry for the Cambrian explosion.

"The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record.[1][2] Lasting for about the next 20[3][4]–25[5][6] million years, it resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.[7] Additionally, the event was accompanied by major diversification"

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

You're wrong!
No! You're wrong!
Simple negation is not an argument.

You seem to be clinging to the phrase "Cambrian Explosion" as though it were still considered a challenge to evolutionary theory, but it isn't. As more and more fossil evidence accumulates our understanding of the speed of the Cambrian radiation improves and as it stands now, the Cambrian is far less exceptional in the sequence of biological events than it once was. And it certainly does not form any compelling argument against evolutionary theory in a general sense.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I am curious if you are familiar with the term phyla.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

More simple negation and unsupported assertion.

I'm sure you can find a scientist that would say "no problem, there was plenty of time" but others disagree. The known rates of DNA mutation and natural selection do not convince me (and many scientists) that 20 - 25 million years was long enough.

Many scientists who do agree with you do so from the standpoint of an a-priori position which says that "It happened, so therefore it is the result of natural causes." I understand why science has to take that position. It is a very useful way to uncover the natural laws that govern the universe. But there appear to be limits to what this approach can explain. This may be one of them.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

The known rates of DNA mutation and natural selection do not convince me (and many scientists) that 20 - 25 million years was long enough.

What is this "known rate" you speak of? I am curious as to your source and the math involved. I would hazard a guess that there is no such thing as it relies on ignorance of how statistics really work. You are not the first to claim evolution is impossible because of statistics. I'll bet you make the same mistakes all the previous claimants have made.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

More simple negation and unsupported assertion.

To be honest I'm taking a very "lazy" defensive position on this by simply reciting the current scientific standards. That way I don't have to produce any information because you can just look it up for yourself.

If you think that the most recent mainstream understanding of the "Cambrian Explosion" poses any realistic challenge to evolutionary theory then please give an example or a source. Otherwise it just seems like you are covering your ears and saying "I don't believe it, I don't believe it".

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

"It happened, so therefore it is the result of natural causes."

Let's compare that to your position which seems to be:
"It happened, so therefore it is the result of unnatural causes."

Let's play a game. I will list things that can be shown to be the result of natural causes and you list those that can be show to be the result of unnatural causes.

Rainbows are clearly the result of natural causes when light passes through water droplets.

Your turn. List one thing that is the result of unnatural causes and can be proven as such in a repeatable experiment.

The result of the game will be that everything which can be shown to have a cause that is known will have a natural cause. You will not be able to list a single thing with an unnatural cause that you can prove in any way.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

To be honest I'm taking a very "lazy" defensive position on this by simply reciting the current scientific standards. That way I don't have to produce any information because you can just look it up for yourself.

If I were lazy too I'd just refer you to sources like the Discovery Institute where some of the best work on ID is being done. But I'm not lazy. I'm willing to show up with my own arguments.

Cut & paste from other sources is just boring. Bring your own game.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Let's compare that to your position which seems to be:
"It happened, so therefore it is the result of unnatural causes."

Nope, that wasn't my position. It would be more accurate to say that if natural causes cannot explain something, it might have a supernatural cause.

And if you cannot acknowledge that there are things like the origins of life and the Big Bang that there are no known causes for, you are too obtuse to interest me further.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Yes, it might have a supernatural cause. But one would expect if that the supernatural caused things we and you would have an example of it. It also could have been caused by a large frog that lives under a bridge and balances the world on it's head. But without some evidence of that being true, I am disinclined to believe it.

You are confusing probability with possibility. The likelihood of you providing a single instance of anything being caused by a supernatural being is not probable to the point of being impossible.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know