Why do people deny evolution?

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

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?

Nice try. I think you meant what you wrote and now you realize it was a mistake and you're bobbing and weaving to hide from it.

But if I'm wrong about that, then all I have to say is your sarcasm delivery needs a lot of work, because as it stands now, it "accidentally" reads exactly like Creationist Denial Propaganda.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

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

I said:
By whom?

Not backing away from anything. CI's use of the word 'formed' leaves the question of whether it was randomly or intelligently guided. I was pointing out that it is still an open question. If you read that as propaganda it is no more so than your own views about random mutation (and natural selection) being responsible for the 'forming'.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

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

I said:
By whom?

Not backing away from anything. CI's use of the word 'formed' leaves the question of whether it was randomly or intelligently guided. I was pointing out that it is still an open question. If you read that as propaganda it is no more so than your own views about random mutation (and natural selection) being responsible for the 'forming'.

You can try to rationalize it all you want. I'm not the one who complained about being misinterpreted. You did that. All I did was point out what you said that caused it.

If you now have another point you want to make, then please make a clear statement so that we don't get run off the tracks again.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Again you cite a statement (about being misinterpreted) that I have no idea about.

My comments about the probability of random chance and natural selection being responsible for life today directly address the OP question.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

a bird doent fly till it has feathers. Were feathers used for someother function? I think youd have to say yes.

Youre problem is that you want to go many ways and are not quite up to speed in the information and evidence that exists out there.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Actually it was the information out there that made me question the 'blind evolution' story.

When the first school books on biology I saw (circa late 1950s) described cells as basically cell membranes, cytoplasm and nucleus, I thought evolution was a viable answer. I'll grant that it IS a seductively elegant one. But the more I learned about cellular biology, the harder it became to believe. With the info available around 2005 and later I was like - Who the hell could believe evolution can account for this? The more I learn the further in that direction I'm driven.

Theological beliefs had nothing to do with that change although it obviously didn't counter it.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

There is nothing directing the mutations. They happen in some random fashion that can be caused by any of a number of things. Evolution doesn't care if they are random. Evolution only relies on the mutations in order to change organisms over time using natural selection.

1 Reply

@parados,

Yeah, I get that - random means random.

I get probability too. I understand that the laws of probability mean that monkeys randomly typing on a lot of keyboards would eventually come up with Shakespeare's play 'King Lear'. It's a question of how long would that take to happen, even allowing for a bunch of typos.

I know you don't buy my math but I'd be glad to see your calculation for the probability of the simplest self reproducing organism capable of evolving happening by random chance.

No matter how hard I try, I can't see it happening in the 4 billion years earth has been around. But I'm open minded. Show me.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evolution/5parts/evolution_5parts.html

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That was good CI. You should refer all those people who are horrified by the 'atrocities' in the bible to this link. Compared to nature, God is an easy going dude.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Yeah, I get that - random means random.

Random means within the rules of the possibilities. You can't expect the number 7 to come up on a six sided die.

Chemistry has rules that don't make all possibilities available.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Chemistry has rules that don't make all possibilities available.

When you're right you're right Parados.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

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.

Damn, missed this one too. But it's a red herring. Here's why.

If we found out the sun was absolutely going to die in 1000 years, even with the technology we have today we could build a multi-generational space craft capable of leaving the solar system and keep some humans alive. I have no doubt that we would do that and you would have no trouble finding people willing to go. Hell, there are people anxious to go on a one way trip to Mars today!

Now imagine what we could do given that we have about 5 Byrs before the sun swallows Earth during red giant phase.

Life is a contradiction to entropy in many ways.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

It is not a logical fallacy to point out that we don't live in a closed system when you argue life on earth is subject to entropy. Entropy only exists in a closed system of which the earth is not one.

LOL.. do you know what a closed system even is? The solar system is not a closed system. The Milky Way galaxy is not a closed system.

Arguing that life can continue in a system that isn't closed says nothing about entropy in a system that is closed. Life is hardly a contradiction to entropy of the universe as a whole since there is nothing in the second law of thermodynamics that states all parts of a system have to move toward disorder at the same time.

1 Reply

@parados,

I could expand on my example but I'm guessing that would be a waste of time.

The universe is a closed system.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

what if its a multiverse

1 Reply

@farmerman,

What if there are unicorns.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

There are, now we call them rhinoceroses.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

But do they fly over rainbows?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I could expand on my example but I'm guessing that would be a waste of time.

The universe is a closed system.

Assuming the universe is a closed system, entropy is calculated using the total system. Decreases of disorder in some parts of the total is OK under the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It seems you wasted your time when you attempted to say I was using a red herring. Clearly you don't understand how entropy works.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know