Why do people deny evolution?

@nameis,

Izzy did not refer to you as an idiot. If you look at his post, you will see "@JimmyJ" before the text of his post. That means that he was addressing him, not you.

0 Replies

@nameis,

nameis wrote:

Those who yell idiot(s) are the idiot(s) for knowing the one being attcked knows nothing of the situation at hand. Therefore. You are the idiot my friend.

I wasn't calling you an idiot, but if the cap fits...

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

Quote:

True or false, evolution is the process by which all organisms diversified.

It couldn't possibly be anything else could it? You have a tautology there James, not a definition.

That's teaching English not biology.

You have yet to address the reasons I gave why some people deny evolution. If nobody denied evolution this thread would have no existence. I don't need to deny evolution to allow those who do deny it some respect.

Saying that those who do deny evolution are stupid does not answer the question the topic poses and nor does it attempt to. It's nothing but a Simple Simon, limp-wristed cop-out which has to be assuming that A2K is a first grade classroom.

Why do organisms diversify? How do they diversify?

2 Replies

@neologist,

You seem to still be trying to argue the validity of the concept of a "theory in science"
A science theory is not speculation and , as far as being absolute, until something better displaces it , complete with unassailable evidence that supports it and NO EVIDENCE REFUTES IT, its pretty much the working fact.
I suppose you have an equivalent "Theory" based on your worldview no?
Id be anxious to look at the evidence you've gathered.

1The world is very old. Geophysics and geochemistry both support each other with radiological and remnant magnetic data for the entire lengh of the Cenozoic . Radiochemistry and stratigraphy support each other for the Cambrian and up. Radiochemistry from the Canadian and Australian shiled , compared to radiological data from meteorites support a very old "deep time" earth.

2A fossil record is now available that clearly emonstrates the "Intermediate " nature of organisms at the key junctures between classes. In other words, we have the fossils that show intermediates between early notochords and armored fish. We have the fossils between fish and amphibians, also between reptiles and mammals, and between reptiles and birds, And we have a pretty good fossil record of the ascendence of primates to man.

3We have "knockout genes" that enable the biologists to test and demonstrate the relationships that lie withing each animal group. (In other words, by turning Off" certain genes, we can reproduce certain ancestral reptilian features in a bird embryo.
Same thing with amphibian mbryos, we can knock our a few million years of evolution and "recreate" fish.

THESE are the big three zones of unassailable evidence that are major underpinnings of natural selection. You need a lot of time and , yes, through time we see the fossils present themselves IN ORDER, and we can "create" earlier forms by rearranging specific gemes.

When your worldview based theory has even one piece of reproducible data or evidence, please present it for discussion.
As Ive seen in my several years here, the ID and Creationist "lobby" seems to want to control the conversation by posing the slew of ridiculous mostly annoying questions out of ignorance while the science end has been busy trying to talk sense.

Do the JW's still "believe" in a world that is less than 10K years old ? Do you still believe in a factual worldwide flood of the Bible? Similarly, ADAM and EVE (including all the unspoken "relatives who made Cain a wife).
I don't think anyone has ever ridiculed these worldviews as long as you don't try to argue them as equivalent "TRUTHS" that can be evidenced scientifically , because you know darn well they cant.
So, in exchange, you've been testing the edges of science theory and posting bold statements without bases.
Gets annoying after a while, you guys have gotta come up with some new tricks.

1 Reply

@spendius,

JimmyJ is very much of that school of scientists who think they already know what's happening so they ignore all indications to the contrary. Had he been working in Alexander Fleming's lab he would have cleaned the petri dishes once they became contaminated and penicillin would not have been discovered. He would have been at the forefront of meteorite dismissal.

Quote:

The idea that stones can fall out of the sky was scornfully denounced by the Académie as an unscientific absurdity. Antoine Lavoisier, for example, the father of modern chemistry, told his fellow Academicians, "Stones cannot fall from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky!" The concept of meteorites was thus condemned as nothing but medieval illusions and old wives' tales. Embarrassed museums all over Europe, wishing to be seen to be part of this enlightened 'Age of Reason', hurriedly threw out their cherished meteorite collections with the garbage as humiliating anachronisms from a superstitious past.

http://www.sott.net/article/238325-Science-Debunked-Meteorites

It's easy to dismiss those who prefer blind faith to scientific reasoning as fools, but when you refuse to accept anything other than scientific orthodoxy as reality you're not much different from those you wish to denigrate.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

When is an orthodoxy a fact?

3 Replies

@farmerman,

You tell me, you're the scientist. I thought the opposite was true, facts become disproven over time, with increasing frequency. Samuel Arbesman wrote a book about it.

For example how many moons does the Earth have?

Btw, this clip has since been superseded, there's more than 2 moons.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I hope you don't mind, but I find myself skeptical of everything. I find very often evolutional theorists are as whackamole as creationist theorists. But I respect those that build their faith on knowledge, as I respect you.

In evolution, why are the missing links all extinct for billions of years? I asked this question back in school and was told that each new species killed off its predecessors. I don't believe for a second this is representative of what all evolutionists believe, but your input would be welcomed

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I thought the opposite was true,

That would be bordering on orthodoxy based upon some science writer from the Times.

Better facts don't necessarily depose their predecessors. Natural Selection didn't "Replace" a previous scientific theory . It became a foundation for an entire body of knowledge , the tendrils of which are so intertwined. that the fact of one portion of evolutionary theory is highly dependent upon three or four different disciplines.
Sort of self checking what?
The problem herein is that many of the denoiers merely try to pick the low hanging fruit where some piece of evidence defines a gap in knowledge. That's what fires up the entire pursuit, trying to fill those gaps.

Darwin was more right than he had any right to believe. Imagine history confers as author , perhaps the greatest idea of the millennium, a guy whose afraid of his own shadow and is as poor a public speaker as Mr Bean.

1 Reply

Science does not upgrade from hypothesis to theory, until they have proven, testable, facts to back it up. As farmerman, or somebody on here once observed, scientists would love to be first to find a flaw in something like evolution, for they would make history. But it can't be done.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The world is very old.

Jesus said it is as a flash of lightning. Including its remaining future. Which is a fact.

Quote:

A fossil record is now available that clearly emonstrates the "Intermediate " nature of organisms at the key junctures between classes.

They are your classes fm. Congeries of organisms that look alike. Surely every organism is an intermediate and superficial outward appearance is only of use for taxonomists to expand their fundings.

Quote:

Gets annoying after a while, you guys have gotta come up with some new tricks.

You hate it when they do old boy. You love the old tricks because they provide opportunities to strut tapestries of assertions such as the above.

What fossil contains any trace of the original motor neuron system? If you think such things are unimportant then you are comparing yourself to a corpse and a skeleton and you are saying that your life, and ours, is nothing but a search for sustenance and protection. A Marxist proposition.

In the light of that how do you explain your visits to shops which sell artist's paraphernalia? The expenditure reduces the supply of sustenance and protection and thus, from an evolutionary point of view, is contraindicated. Anti-evolution.

I would stick with the guys who have no new tricks if I was you. As you have always been sensible enough to do.

You have none either.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

When is an orthodoxy a fact?

When it is efficient for human use.

0 Replies

@Calamity Dal,

"

Quote:

I find very often evolutional theorists are as whackamole as creationist

" Can you be specific?

Quote:

why are the missing links all extinct for billions of years?

That's not true. A billion years ago, only a few of the major classes ere even in existence. The "Missing links you speak have spread themselves out from the middle Cambrian all the way to the Oligocene

Quote:

and was told that each new species killed off its predecessors. [/ quote] That's a shame. Im on a constant warpath against our public school system where we (in the US) confer "career guidance" to teachers who are more trained in the showmanship of being a teacher rather than competence in their subjects.
Species outcompete each other and, like the Malthusian point that Darwin made, this competition for limited resources (and a changing environment) results in the extinction of the less fit and the expansion of the better fit.
Predation is moe a fact today as weve exchanged species from one atrea of the world to another. All this will create a new evolutionary workshop to test who "makes it out the other side".
Will the invasive pythons have a major effect on fauna of the everglades? will the snakefish cause native bass to become more furtive or adapt to colder water?
There are many "Evolution workshops" going on in the natural world, Madagascar, Galapogos, Catalina ISland, the Sierras ect. ALL have species that are quickly adapting to changing environments and are doing so within your life time. We can see evolution in action at many of these places, BUT, it takes study and careful observation.
Approaching evolutionary theory is best done by starting with something like anatomy of critters or looking at the wild diversity of plants and asking why some of these critters or plants are unique to one teeny place on the map .

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Oh yeh, it would mean fortune and glory Indy.Fotune and glory.
Ive posted a "Gimme" for the IDers and no ones even bit.
If we look at convergent evolution, the fact that many species gravitate towards a related body plan (like "sabre toothed marsupials and cats and canines or winged fish, and squirrels ) have all lived in history. MAke an argument for Intelligent design based upon that.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

" Can you be specific?

I am not saying the evolutionary theory is whackamole or indeed the creationist theory, but those that deploy it. I see validity and flaws in many different theories

Im talking about those in either camp with limited knowledge upon which one claims empirical truths and employs absolutes that are fallible. Those that would refute logic rather than take one on the chin and be wrong. JimmyJ and Romeo are perfect examples.

I refuse to be atheist, and I refuse to be a theist, purely because I am drawn to flaws, which is in turn my very own flaw. I am however working on it.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

But it can't be done.

Obviously ed. Evolution is an internally consistent system and, as such, cannot be refuted. Only the social consequences of the acceptance of it are of interest to intelligent people and from what I have read of your posts I would advise you to continue avoiding that subject with great care.

When the acceptance of the evolutionary explanation is half-baked, as I know it is in every instance on here, it is a nothing thing except as a weapon to beat up the majority of the population with. An aggressive affectation very easy to display in a society which has not gone full-baked. You get to be a member of the awkward squad without taking any risks.

How nice eh?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Humans will always be humans, regardless of being scientists and/or deists. Your concerns are quixotic.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im on a constant warpath against our public school system where we (in the US) confer "career guidance" to teachers who are more trained in the showmanship of being a teacher rather than competence in their subjects.

What have you got against that fm? Do you want a machine which plays a recording of you holding forth at the kids?

You use evolution, and science, for nothing else other than showmanship. You haven't a scientific bone in your body. And I recommend you to keep it that way. Science is not for the squeamish.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I've never denied evolution, I just don't think that believing in evolution means you're smart.

Quote:

Natural Selection didn't "Replace" a previous scientific theory .

I thought it replaced Progressionism, as espoused by Louis Agassiz.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Agassiz was , as far as I understand, a Creationist.

Quote:

I've never denied evolution, I just don't think that believing in evolution means you're smart.

I think being thought of as "smart" is probably at the ass end of a scientists bucket list. I think we are always giving ourselves lectures about how stupid we are for missing an obvious piece of something or other.

PS, "belief" is only necessary when you have no confidence in your data and evidence. You don't "believe " in a fact, you utilize it somehow, even if its only to discover more.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know