Why do people deny evolution?

@Leadfoot,

It is reasonable to expect physical evidence. But it is unreasonable to not accept physical evidence because you don't like the conclusions it leads to. It is reasonable to look at all the physical evidence and use the preponderance of that evidence to reach a conclusion. It is unreasonable to only accept the minority of physical evidence that supports your conclusion while completely discounting the majority of the evidence that doesn't point to your conclusion.

For instance - Does DNA change over time and with successive generations? You seem to want to argue that it doesn't. We have very clear evidence that it can mutate.

1 Reply

@parados,

Another strawman to make it easier for you to avoid the issue. If you outright reject the possibility of the supernatural that's OK, just don't change the subject to avoid saying it.

I have never denied that DNA can mutate. I have questioned whether mutation (and natural selection) can do things like the Cambrian Explosion where life went from gooey worms to virtually all the body plans around today in that brief 20 - 45 Myrs. Exact number depends on the expert you believe but even the highest estimate makes me doubt mutation could do it. I'm going on the physical evidence on that you know.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I see no evidence of a supernatural being. Based on the preponderance of evidence I think it is not likely that a supernatural being exists.

Let's start with your claim that the "Cambrian Explosion" happened in 20-45M yrs. Your evidence that the "Cambrian Explosion" was as short as 20M years? It's funny that you accuse me of a straw man in the same post where you posit a length of time that isn't really supported by those claiming the evolution of life during that time period. Provide support for your claim that science argues that the Cambrian explosion occurred in 20 M years.

2 Replies

@parados,

I was pointing out that sometimes evidence of something can be destroyed or rendered undetectable by current science. It doesn't mean it didn't happen.

For a long time scientists dismissed talk of meteorites as ignorant peasants tales.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I get plenty of attention, little boy--that's something you seem to crave. Your hypothetical about meteors was hardly germane to Parados' remarks.

1 Reply

@parados,

His entire "Cambrian Explosion" story is slowly being ignored by the more educated Creationists. Its always been a "trial balloon" argument that complex life couldnt just "happen " in ashort period of the "Explosion" , (a term that was drafted by a paleontological writer and grabbed up by the Creation "scientists " an then the IDers.

Ive been preaching two facts concerning the Cambrian Explosion

1It really was much longer than 20 MY (some folks state that it extends back to the mid- Cryogenian period)

2Complex life ( like mollusca and arthropoda) appeared much earlier than the base of the CAmbrian.(This is my fv because , soon after the appearance of cyanobacter-there appeared several "arthropod-like " fossils in Australia and Green;and fossil beds..
Ive detailed many of these from past discussions with the Creation minded ( and anti-science)members.

Leadfoot is just repeating crap from his mentors and he really doesnt spend any time learning the facts.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

That's why you had to jump in on a conversation with someone else. I have no interest in talking to you, you don't exactly think, you just regurgitate facts, and your sense of humour stopped developing when you were still at primary school.

You're like a premenstrual Sat Nav. And I'm not going to waste any more time on you. You'll have to go elsewhere for the attention you crave.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I've been participating in this thread literally for years. You just came in here to post some old bullsh*t (scientists didn't believe in meteors? Ah-hahahahahaha), and to attempt to stir the turd. It's amazing how you project your own failings onto others . . . or try to.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

You want to simply ignore evidence and possibilities if they don't need preconceived conclusions

. I am not ignoring evidence, I am asking for evidence for a specific thing. I want evidence supporting the evolution from asexual reproduction in simple organisms to sexual reproduction in complex vertebrates. Especially a logical transition from asexual reproduction in multicellular animals to sexual reproduction in mammals including an explanation of how spawning evolved to live birth and copulation. Nobody has explained to me how the male sexual organs evolved alongside the female when only females can can reproduce asexually until the male's organs are formed enough to reproduce sexually. What evidence do we have of these transitional males in complex sexual animals? There is a preponderance of evidence that there are a lots of different types of sexual reproduction I am looking for the evidence of the transition from one type to another. If evolution can answer most of the questions but does not have an answer for all of the questions maybe it needs a major modification. Gould before his death was trying to solve this problem with punctuated equilibrium. He saw the same problem I see with sudden emergence of fully-formed organs and processes with the very short evolutionary timetable. He gave a name to the process that was needed but, he gave no explanation of how natural selection of random mutations made these transformations in animal body types happen over such a short periods of time.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Let's start with your claim that the "Cambrian Explosion" happened in 20-45M yrs. Your evidence that the "Cambrian Explosion" was as short as 20M years? It's funny that you accuse me of a straw man in the same post where you posit a length of time that isn't really supported by those claiming the evolution of life during that time period.

I suppose by repeating this BS claim you hope to give it validity. I've answered your false charge before.

The following quote is from Wikipedia, a source that reflects the scientific evidence and is hostile to the theory of ID. If you doubt that, look it up. Farmer's false statement about ID being the source of the 'Cambrian Explosion' time frame is the same kind of falsehood and mudslinging. But this is what you do when you have nothing to back up your arguments.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

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 20–25 [5][6] million years, it resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.[

Note that I used a much larger possible range of time estimate than Wiki. just to include other source estimates.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Nobody has explained to me how the male sexual organs evolved alongside the female when only females can can reproduce asexually until the male's organs are formed enough to reproduce sexually

It has been explained to you repeatedly. You just don't want to hear.

Quote:

He saw the same problem I see with sudden emergence of fully-formed organs

What are fully formed organs? If humans have 3' long penises in 10oo years does that mean that your 5" one was not fully formed? Since it wasn't fully formed how could you possibly procreate? /sarcasm

It has been explained to you repeatedly. Organs only need to function to procreate. How they do that is not relevant to how they do it 1 million years later.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Let's look at how you ignore evidence - From wiki -

Quote:

Over the following 70 to 80 million years, the rate of diversification accelerated by an order of magnitude[note 3] and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today.[10] Many of the present phyla appeared during this period,

1 Reply

@parados,

As it clearly stated, that was FOLLOWING the Cambrian Explosion. It does not negate that

Quote:

[The Cambrian Explosion] Lasting for about the next 20–25 [5][6] million years, it resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.

What happened during the following 70-80 million years was a huge divergence of species based on the phyla generated during the Cambrian explosion. The basic 'designs' came during the CE, variations on them followed. That would not have been possible without the CE background phyla. There were a few exceptions but as it said, MOST modern phyla came from the CE.

Not that it really matters. I would still not find it possible for all those body plans to emerge from gooey worms in a mere 70 - 80 myrs.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I should have added that I would still not find it possible in that timeframe 'due only to random mutation'. Obviously it happened, 'How' is the question.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

As you clearly stated -

Quote:

I have never denied that DNA can mutate. I have questioned whether mutation (and natural selection) can do things like the Cambrian Explosion where life went from gooey worms to virtually all the body plans around today in that brief 20 - 45 Myrs

Walking on 2 legs would be a body plan that didn't show up then.
Mammals didn't show up in that 20 Myrs.
Walking on 4 legs didn't even show up then.

Phyla are not body plans.

Quote:

What happened during the following 70-80 million years was a huge divergence of species based on the phyla generated during the Cambrian explosion

Yes. That would be the time frame when many of those body plans, but not all of them, showed up.

You did use a straw man argument. Now you are trying to pretend you didn't use it by pretending you meant phyla when you said body plans. It's interesting that of the 35 animal phyla, the majority of them have less than 1000 species associated with that phyla and over 1/3 of the phyla are worms.

So in the early Cambrian, 12 phyla of worms showed up along with worms with armor plating, worms with shells, and worms with something similar to a spinal cord. Ancestors of most of the current body plans but not the current body plans.

1 Reply

@parados,

I probably should not bother with your ****-storm of BS but for the hell of it, this is from Wikipedia.:

Quote:

Informally, phyla can be thought of as grouping organisms based on general specialization of body plan.[6

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Informally, phyla can be thought of as grouping organisms based on general specialization of body plan.

I see you have now moved to an informal argument instead of the scientific one. If only the science you were arguing against was informal.

A straw man is created when you change the argument of the other side. When you claim science is informal groupings in order to bolster your argument, what is it you are creating?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

The basic 'designs' came during the CE, variations on them followed. That would not have been possible without the CE background phyla. There were a few exceptions but as it said, MOST modern phyla came from the CE.

This may have been considered a valid consideration, 40 or so years ago. HoweverSprigina flounderi, Bombellia kelleri,Parvacorina minchani, and related groups like Archeospinus now clearly show that "shelled , footed, and some hard shelled organisms had their beginnings in the Pre-Cambrian.

For Creationists, It always makes a good "hopeful" story to hang their worldviews on an observation made by some scientist who likes coining phrases (Stephen Gould). The term originally was "Cambrian Radiation" and ascribed to Preston Cloud . We know so much more about the Cambrian Explosion now than we did then.(as with all fossil assemblages, we hqve found totlly new pre Cambrian laggestattes in Austrqlia, China, Canada, and Greenland in the last 40 years
It doesnt mean that the term Cambrian Explosion is a "forever" fact. The Creationists and IDers are the only ones who cling to their science-free conclusions that
"20 or 50 million years isnt enough time to produce "most of" the phyla on the earth.They, Leadfoot included, make believe they know of what they speak when they make those baseless pronouncements. (Yet they are quick to try to deny modern research that corrects those original conclusions)

Fossil assemblages are like days of the week, there are always several days of new findings that follow the day that youre now enjoying.
The real problems with the Creationists is that they find something they love to hang their hats on but are reluctant to accept anything new that deflates their previous beliefs.

Ive been in the business for 40 years and I still tell my classes that "this is only todays truth.Hang onto it very loosely for tomorrow we may have to pitch everything into the dustbin"
Creationists have no need to worry about scientific research once they get their favorite BS phrase to cling to. Once the Cambrian Explosion has been established for them with its accompanying belief that "theres just not enough time to affect evolution of several phyla". THAT STAYS IN THEIR BAG-O-TRICKS FOREVER

Another thing, actually MOST of the Classes of life(plants included) that existed (and exist on earth), were first appearing DURING the length of the Cambrian

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

It has been explain to you repeatedly you just don't want to hear.

Most of the explanations have been links to websites with very little explanation. When I asked for clarification I really don't get any, just a bunch of name calling. Penises growing a little longer it's hardly evolution that could be selective breeding. Long penises and short penises might already be in the genetic code. I am looking for macroevolutionary changes in reproduction from things like spawning to copulation or from asexual to sexual in complex multicellular males. Or from laying eggs to live birth in females. And an explanation of how they evolved alongside each other.

Quote:

How they do it is not relevant to how they do it 1 million years later

A logical explanation of how things transitioned over that 1 million years from simplicity to complexity is relevant. The details such as evidence of transitional animals in the fossil record and a workable explanation of how complexity developed sequebtially in opposite sexes is relevant. Why not just give me a detailed explanation. There are a lot of people interested in this. If the explanation is a few pages long let's take our time and go over it. Let's Wade through the scientific mumble jumble and put it in layman's terms.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

HoweverSprigina flounderi, Bombellia kelleri,Parvacorina minchani, and related groups like Archeospinus now clearly show that "shelled , footed, and some hard shelled organisms had their beginnings in the Pre-Cambrian.

I've given you this informal response before.

A gooey worm in a shell is still a gooey worm.

And for Parados and you:
For many reasons we can only talk about this informally in generalizations. Don't pretend we are doing cutting edge Biology here.
I'm not knocking informal discussions. Being informal does not mean 'lacking validity'.

2 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know