Why do people deny evolution?

2 plus banana does not equal purple but you insist it is.

Actually, 2+ banana = banurple.
I thought everyone knew that.
It helps to have grapes involved, though.
Some people call it banape.

Nonlocality is the relativity in the flux of local moving and changing things. Such as the choice of a anticlockwise double helix in dna.

"Why do people deny evolution?"

I suspect that it's probably just not something that the denialist's family gets directly involved in. It goes against their family history, maybe.

Yeah relatives relate to things fbm in a relative way. They deny evolution because they dont like to relate to it. You your self relate to it.

Yeah because of there the fishes that is relativity to the enviroment. Relativity is the director of change of forms in the event. God and relativity is the exact same indistinuishble thing. Can ya relate to that fact or not. Heh relativity caused the anticlockwise helix in dna.

Relativness in stuff causes stuff to change and thats in both physics and biology. The relativness in stuff is the nonlocal part of the local bigbang story.

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.


Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:


The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

Either way god is the relativeness in the event. Relativeness causes change in the event. Consciousness is relativeness.

These are some rather tired, and thoroughly discredited theories that creationists bring up in the hope of doing away with the theory of evolution. Some of them are successful on people without a background in science, but for anyone who reads the scientific literature (and probably with good training in science) has read how these are now just flaccid arguments made by those who cling dearly to bronze age beliefs.



These, and the other arguments posed have all been addressed and discredited. Only the uninformed remain attached to them; under total control of one's belief system.
If you want to discredit evolution, then go find fossils in the wrong temporal sequence.

Relativness is the changer of forms in the event and relativeness is the nonlocal essence of the pre bigbang spirit state. So relativeness is the spirit in the energy of physics and biological change.

Relativness gives function its direction as in the dna anticlockwise helix.

We see reports of hundreds of thousands of new species of which evolve through evolution during humanities lifetime. Humans on the other hand have not changed since the creation of the first man.

Would that be Asian, Caucasian, or negroid man?

Here's five more bits of counter-evidence for you http://mentalfloss.com/article/30795/5-signs-humans-are-still-evolving

Nothing is god.

And your consciousness is nothing.

Nothing as relativeness in something ordered the construction of dna.

There is logic in relativeness that gives function. Example hydrogen relating logicaly to oxygen gives the function to water. So in the same way logical relativeness gives dna an anticlockwise function. The logic of action is relativity. In much the same way as boolean logic works.