Why do people deny evolution?

@Leadfoot,

You don't really need me to explain to you why "Random Chance" is a specious argument against evolution do you? Honestly, you seem smarter than that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I wrote a post about the prospects of conventional war with China, which i consider to be practically nonexistent, for reasons of logistics.

Unfortunately logistics is no obstacle.

Both the US and China are capable of projecting massive amounts of war power into the East China Sea, South China Sea, Philippine Sea, etc.

Setanta wrote:

You respond by babbling about nuclear war.

Unfortunately a conventional war between two nuclear weapons states carries a grave risk of escalation to nuclear war.

Setanta wrote:

That was not germane to the content of my post.

Yes it was. You made a silly comment about me daydreaming. Since I am expressing a concern about nuclear war here, it stands to reason that your silly comment related to the things I was expressing in my posts. There was certainly nothing in your daydream comment that suggested daydreams "only" about conventional wars.

Setanta wrote:

You con't seem able to keep track of a conversation.

I'm doing OK so far.

Setanta wrote:

When i did mention notional nuclear attacks on the United States, i wasn't talking to you. Mind your own f*cking business.

As previously noted, I deem the danger of this war to be serious enough that I choose to raise the issue for public consideration.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

You don't really need me to explain to you why "Random Chance" is a specious argument against evolution do you? Honestly, you seem smarter than that.

I'm saying that random chance is a key ingredient to the theory of evolution and if you deny it's role and use of it in argument for and against evolution then you have no reason to wonder about the question in the OP.

I think you ARE smart enough so give me reason to continue that opinion and tell me whether you accept random chance as necessary for evolution theory.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Mutations are not the same thing as evolution. Evolution requires natural selection which is not random. To claim it is totally dependent on one thing and to ignore the other is to misrepresent how evolution works.

It would be like arguing that the fact that a river flows downward is completely random because the the way the landscape was laid down was random.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Mutations are not the same thing as evolution. Evolution requires natural selection which is not random. To claim it is totally dependent on one thing and to ignore the other is to misrepresent how evolution works.

I didn't say that natural selection is not part of evolution theory. I said that random chance (mutation) IS part of it. In fact in the order of things evolutionary, random chance is primary. It has to happen first, otherwise there is nothing for natural selection to 'select' from. The question is, can these two factors explain the result we see today in the time available. Darwin's (and his faithfuls') answer was 'yes it can, it had to because it happened'. Your favorite circular argument.

It is understandable that you would be hesitant to accept random chance as key because it allows the question of whether that works or not to come up.

Quote:

It would be like arguing that the fact that a river flows downward is completely random because the the way the landscape was laid down was random.

Not a valid analogy but does bring up the question of 'entropy', which is why water runs down hill. Everything in the universe 'goes down hill', from order to disorder, EXCEPT LIFE. Have you never wondered why that is?

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

youve got the same thing going on in your head as our friend layman. DARWIN himself had said that evolution, "desecent with modification" is a two step program ( he didnt understand "mutations " cause he had no knowledge of genetics. He used "Trait" and then with "traits" affixed, natural selection FAVORS one or more. This phony argument seems to want to hold evolution to one or more processes. Its a bogus argument that seems to occupy more space in blogs than in scientific journals. (I get Evolution and Paleontology , and m amzed at how little space actually is taken up.
The argument that the IIDers are proponents of is that somehow, a "magical" god driven intelligence provides the random fixed mutations (Where they get it wrong is that environmental (or other) selection is required to fix it in the phenotype. Genetic Drift and convergent and divergent evolution , when really analyzed more closely, present the phenotype as the result of selection based on populational geographical dynamics and "Red Queen" daptation.
All the arguments kinda boil down to "which came first" rien to an idiotic level.

I want a world where the motives of a chicken crossing the road are NOT questioned .

The "river flows down" analogy is correct in that a sequence ofa "cascade" of specific mutations always depends on the mutations that have gone before.(Read Sean Carroll) Think about it. the HOx genes apparently did NOT express themselves in such wonderful ways until some basic structure first appeared.
Like Behes "Irreducible complexity" for the enzymatic cascade associated with blood clotting was debunked when molecular biologists discovered the primitive cascades associqted with "blood clotting" in such species as Limulus or even Amphioxus
a primary phenotype was established

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Every single ancestor of every organism alive today, and every organism that has ever lived, was successful at reproduction. They were all formed "enough to do the job".

I keep asking this question and get answers referring me to clumping of yeast, temperature dependent sexes, worms etc . . . Where is the explanation to how worms evolved to animals with actual sex organs?What evidence do we have of this besides fossils of animals with complete systems of reproduction? Where is the evidence, or an explanation, of how the males in complex organisms evolved from say spawning to copulation, or asexual to sexual? In animals that copulate the male version can't reproduce asexually. Yes, fish can do temp sensitive, but only in females. How did the males evolve from worms to fish, and then from spawning to copulating? Did they change back in forth between male and female by temperature each generation, so the male could evolve? As I quoted wiki earlier.

Quote:

The origin and function of meiosis are fundamental to understanding the evolution of sexual reproduction in Eukaryotes. There is no current consensus among biologists on the questions of how sex in Eukaryotes arose in evolution, what basic function sexual reproduction serves, and why it is maintained, given the basic two-fold cost of sex. It is clear that it evolved over 1.2 billion years ago, and that almost all species which are descendents of the original sexually reproducing species are still sexual reproducers, including plants, fungi, and animals.
If it is unclear to biologists, why is it clear to you, parados? If it is unclear to biologists, how natural selection did it, how can it be clear natural selection by itself can do it at all? Is it because nobody wants to look at any alternatives?

Biologists can't explain the evolution of meiosis, let alone the delivery system in a complex male organism. They don't even talk about the delivery system, they just say it happened like parados.Parados said:
Fact - unless the organs work there is no way to produce offspring.
Fact - they did produce offspring so your assumption is false.[/quote]I am not making assumptions, I am asking the same question over and over with no answer. Where is the evidence, or an explanation, of how the males in complex organisms evolved from say spawning to copulation, or asexual to sexual?

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Ok, I didn't realize you had Parados on ignore...

Leadfoot wrote:

I'm saying that random chance is a key ingredient to the theory of evolution and if you deny it's role and use of it in argument for and against evolution then you have no reason to wonder about the question in the OP.

That's not what you implied at all. Here's your statement:

Leadfoot wrote:

Can't blame you for thinking she [Mary Poppins] was more likely than random chance. That IS your alternative that you take seriously.

Your statement clearly implies that "Random Chance" in evolution somehow invalidates it to the point where Magic is a preferential option.

Of course we take it seriously, as does anyone who understands that Random Chance alone is not the only operator in Evolution. Either you understand this or you don't. If you understand it, then I don't understand why you would make such a silly implication in your post.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Quote:

Every single ancestor of every organism alive today, and every organism that has ever lived, was successful at reproduction. They were all formed "enough to do the job".
I keep asking this question and get answers referring me to clumping of yeast, temperature dependent sexes, worms etc . . .

First let's make sure that you understand and agree that there are no "Partially Developed" organs. It's going to be impossible to explain anything else to you until that concept makes sense to you.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Worms have actual sex organs. Whatever the type of worm, they can all do it.

That's because sexual reproduction dates from way way back, before even worms. If memory serves, sex as we know it was first tried by corals, way before the appearance of any worm on earth. Corals are the most promitive multi-cellular animal species there is, and they practice sexual reproduction already.

Before them, unicellular amoebas are known to exchange their genetic material in time of stress. It's like proto-sex.

So it's not like one day some fish, some bird or some mammal started to use sexual reproduction for the first time and had to evolve some organ for it. Sex, as the practice of mixing up the genes of different individuals to produce an entirely new individual, was "invented" very very very early on, before there was any bird, fish or mammal, and it has been with us ever since.

Therefore, sexual reproduction and sexual organs evolved together, simultaneously. And almost from day one.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I didn't say that natural selection is not part of evolution theory. I said that random chance (mutation) IS part of it.

Actually, you said this -

Quote:

EVOLUTION is absolutely dependent on random chance.

Evolution would occur whether mutations are random or not. If nature cycled through the DNA and changed them in a specific order that wasn't random evolution would still occur. But if it makes you feel better to deny what you said, go ahead. I will just post a link to your post so others can see what you are denying you said.
http://able2know.org/topic/229102-402#post-6162094

Quote:

Not a valid analogy but does bring up the question of 'entropy', which is why water runs down hill. Everything in the universe 'goes down hill', from order to disorder, EXCEPT LIFE. Have you never wondered why that is?

How nice of you to misrepresent the meaning of entropy which requires a closed thermodynamic system. The earth is not a closed system. There continues to be this bright object in the sky, that we refer to as the sun, that makes sure it isn't closed.

You seem to be filled with disproved ideas about why evolution can't work.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Of course we take it seriously, as does anyone who understands that Random Chance alone is not the only operator in Evolution.

I understand Evolution theory requires natural selection in addition to random chance (mutation) as well and have said so many times. Why do you, FM and Parados keep pretending I don't?

But thank you for finally saying that random chance is a required operator in evolution theory.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Evolution would occur whether mutations are random or not.

Well hell yes!

The thing is, 'evolution believers' make it an article of faith that they ARE random.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I understand Evolution theory requires natural selection in addition to random chance (mutation) as well and have said so many times. Why do you, FM and Parados keep pretending I don't?

Because at least in this last case, the post you wrote clearly implied otherwise. Maybe you need to be more careful about what you say.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Yes, I'm aware Darwin didn't know about genetics but he obviously knew some mechanism for generating 'traits' was at work.

Quote:

Think about it. the HOx genes apparently did NOT express themselves in such wonderful ways until some basic structure first appeared.

I'm surprised to hear you cite that. It implies that random chance generated body plans came about BEFORE they were actually needed. I mean WTF.

Think about it indeed.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Where is the explanation to how worms evolved to animals with actual sex organs?

This is your nonsense you keep repeating. You won't believe something could happen until you are told every detail. It seems you can't think for yourself.

Quote:

I am not making assumptions, I am asking the same question over and over with no answer. Where is the evidence, or an explanation, of how the males in complex organisms evolved from say spawning to copulation, or asexual to sexual?

But you are making assumptions. You just want to continue to deny it.

Worms are not male and female organisms but they do have sexual reproduction. Stop and think about it for a moment.

What happens when offspring develop ZW chromosomes? What happens when those ZW chromosomes start to create male/female organisms based on ZZ and ZW offspring? Do the worms stop having sex before they become male/female? What happens when a worm with both male and female organs has sex with a worm that only has male organs or only female organs? Tell us what you think will happen? Would they be unable to produce offspring? Why?

Now lets look at spawning to copulation. Some sea creatures carry their fertilized eggs, others leave them on the sea/river bed. If the environment changes so all eggs left on the sea/river bed are destroyed, which organism will reproduce and take over the population? The changes can be minor over time. Eggs can be held to a parent by mucus or under scales. Then more minor changes occur. Can you think of any other minor changes that could happen? Why are you incapable of thinking of all those minor changes? Is your mind that closed?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:
"I understand Evolution theory requires natural selection in addition to random chance (mutation) as well and have said so many times. Why do you, FM and Parados keep pretending I don't?"

ros replied:
Because at least in this last case, the post you wrote clearly implied otherwise. Maybe you need to be more careful about what you say.

Now I'm seriously confused about what you are trying to say. Read the large print emphasis in that post and tell me I didn't agree that natural selection is part of evolutionary theory.

How much more carefully could I say it?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Because that's not the post you left that started all this. I already provided the original post that lead to this. How come you are ignoring it?

Here, I'll re-post AGAIN for you... (see below)

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Here's your original quote which lead to all this, including the link back to your original.

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
They were all formed "enough to do the job".

By whom?

If it has to be a whom, then I'm going with Mary Poppins.
Can't blame you for thinking she was more likely than random chance. That IS your alternative that you take seriously.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Oh come on. Your comment and mine were both flippant remarks meant as conversation starters - which they did.

Are you still sticking to your Mary Poppins theory?

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know