Why do people deny evolution?

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

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 conclusion, 40 or so years ago. HoweverSprigina flounderi, Bombellia kelleri,Parvacorina minchani, and related groups like Archeospinus now clearly show that "shelled an footed organisms had their beginnings in the Pre-Cambrian.

It always makes a good "hopeful" story to hang your wrldview on an observation made by some scientist who likes coining phrases (Stephen Gould).
It doest mean that its a fact.
Fossil assemblages are like days of the week, there are always several days of new findings that trail the one youre in.
The real problems with the Cretionists is that they find something they love to hang their hats on but are reluctant to accept anything new that diffuses and debunks their previous ones.

Ive been in the business for 40 years and I still tell my classes that "this is todays truth" hang onto it very loosely for tomorrow we may have to pitch it.

Another thing, actually MOST of the phyla that existed (and exist on earth), were first appearing during the length of the Cambrian

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

]Yet they are quick to try to deny the modern research that corrects those conclsions

What is the modern research that corrects those conclusions? Evolution is the most sound bited science out there. I would love some details from scientists. Can we summarize it in layman's terms and still talk about it scientifically?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

A gooey worm in a shell is still a gooey worm

How bout arthropods.?

Ignorance like yours should not be paraded proudly about . Youre really giving the honest IDers a bad name.

I have facts and evidence on my side, What do you have but a few idiotic attempts at rejoinders

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I am looking for macroevolutionary changes in reproduction from things like spawning to copulation

everything from reproduction to morphology and genotyic expression. I teacha course on Paleo for exploration geologists. It a doozy and meant for people who really wish to learn.
(You sound more like the Leadfoot crowd where you wont accept findings and evidence no matter how its broken down)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I have facts and evidence on my side

Quote:

you sound more like the Leadfoot crowd where you won't accept findings and evidence no matter how it's broken down

I will accept any finding. I think I'm just asking for a detailed explanation so that the finding sounds logical and complete, and actually answers the question without a lot of assumptions. Why is it so hard to discuss the details, without talking about the people that are talking about the details? I was always taught, the only stupid question is the question not asked.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Do you understand that macro evolution is nothing but micro evolution over a long time period?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

well, lets discuss what you think you have that denies any of the data and evidence thats been discussed prevously.
If you are really interested Id suggest you scan several of these threads. "Creationists" have a normal MO where they first deny science and then claim that they have hard evidence (When , indeed, all of their evidence comes back to "I dont believe that theres enough time to evolve life on earth"
Thats a bogus, thought-free assertion and Its really not worthy of debate . Its like arguing that BIGFOOT exists (or not).

1 Reply

@parados,

he knows. Creationsist need to have a corner to which they can duck. They "accept" microevolution but deny macro.
The term itself is one from another age, when genetics was still a phenomenon misunderstood and the fossil reord was about 25% of what we know today The scientific opening of China has given us so much fuel about birds , fish, insects , as well as pre Cambrian ARTHROPODS, its amazing.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I don't want to talk about ID or creationism. I want to talk about evolution through natural selection of random mutations. I thought microevolution was evolution within a species, and macro-evolution was evolution between species. Is that incorrect or is there more modern language for that now. Could we trace the evolution from a simple single celled asexual organism like an amoeba to a complex sexual organism like a mammal. We can skip some of the simple areas, and let's jump to the gaps that are hard to cross. Gaps like an egg-laying fish that can reproduce both asexually or sexually, evolving to a live birth mammal that nurses and can only reproduce sexually.

3 Replies

@brianjakub,

the theory ofevolution by natural selection and containing genetic and embryological evidence, best explains all the information that we are provided through geologic time, embryological similarities, divergence and convergence of species, as well as development of organs and phenotypic changes.
I study the fossil record in y work and thats information presented by paleo species.
Evolution best explains all of it .(without any evidence refuring it)

Do you have anything as good? Lets discuss and compare evidence .

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

They are unwilling to summarize what they are saying so let me try.

The fossil and the apparent genetic history indicates that heterosexual reproduction (as in mammals) came about, so since it happened, that proves random mutation and natural selection can accomplish it, even if we can't see all the steps.

They will of course retort that 'you're a bible thump'n creationist' trying to push a 'God of the gaps'', no matter how often you say you just want to know the facts. Any question where there is uncertainty in science is taken as an attack on Evolution.

Just the way it is.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The theory of evolution by natural selection and containing genetic and embryological evidence best explains all the information

It's best because it's the only one that provides purely natural means as an explanation. Purely natural means is ruling out ID and any other explanation I've ever heard anybody else come up with. The reason I deny evolution can explain everything is because it doesn't. Arent embryos just younger versions of adults but their DNA is the same as the adult version of themselves? Do similarities in embryos just mean similarities in their DNA code? Can embryology explain how the DNA code changed over time through evolution by natural selection. I would like an explanation of that. DNA had to progress and evolve in complexity, differently but parallel, in males and females for complex sexual reproduction, like mammals to develop. Doesnt the fossil record have some evidence of smooth evolution with large gaps between simple asexual reproduction and complex sexual reproduction in mammals. I have some alternative ideas to modify evolution but, the question here was why people deny evolution. My question is why can't we fill in the gaps and answer all these questions? I am assuming you guys can fill them, otherwise I am asked to take a lot of things on faith that they happened even though I can't observe them and I can't replicate them today. Answering my questions on the evolution of sexual reproduction would go a long way though and helping me understand how Evolution can do this.
Please tell me leadfoot is wrong and you will answer my questions.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

My concern is that, no matter ones age, the NEW methods for learning embrace the understanding and learning how to seek out the RESOURCES from which you can extract the answers to questions. We are no longer in an age where we ce;ebrate the filling your head with all the growing masses of facts. Yet somehow, these fora wade around in the "old school" learning with some kind of "In locas magistres' wherein someone knowledgeable(LIKE ME) is constantly being gunned for by an obvious ignorant denier of the facts and evidence.

Leadfoot , youve already made it abundantly clear that youre a narrow minded pod who's only interested in belittling science challenges to your equally narrow religious worldview. You really dont want to know anything because otherwise you would have been seeking out the specimens and books Ive recommended you lo these many moons. You continually try to mount criticism ( ad ignorante) while never realizing that your very questions and comments (Like the recent "gooey worm " pronouncement ) display a fundamental lack of knowledge of the very things you try to criticize. Yet , most of those specimens I pointed you to, are truly proto ARTHROPODS (look it up)

As far as seeing the "evolution " from asexual to sexual reproduction, It doesnt work that way.In many cases, species have taken a reverse direction There are many costs to becoming a species with sexual reproduction. One of the most significant is the potential for quickly becoming extinct, whereas asexual reproduction seems to assure genera "immortality" (but boringly narrow genetic diversity)
Severql groups of species have gone from asexual to sexual, to hermaphroditic reproduction (some species, (modern obviously) display both asexual and sexual reproduction. Some species , like certain free living worms, have both sexes on each end of a single specimen.
Since animals contain about 25% of the genomes of lichen, itd be sure that several of the reproductive strategies animals have gained from plants seems to parallel the genomes of lichens.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

As far as seeing the evolution from asexual or sexual reproduction it doesn't work that way in many cases species have taken a reverse direction there are many costs to becoming a species which uses sexual reproduction one of the most significant cost is extinction where is asexual reproduction insyre genre immortality several groups of species have gone from asexual to sexual turn hermaphroditic reproduction Etc. . .

If it doesn't work that way how does it work? Could you give us some examples in the fossil record of the evolution back and forth from different types of sexual reproduction? And how did the opposite Sexes in complex organisms like mammals evolve differently but parallel?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

what part of the fossil record would you think? Are there any fossils that show ancient forms displaying sexual congress with free living (or parasitic) forms that do not?

My usual approach is to get the students to do all the work.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Are there any fossils that show ancient forms displaying sexual congress with free living or parasitic forms that do not

the only information on parasites and sexual evolution is that sexual reproduction has a better defense against parasitic invasion over asexual. I haven't found any information on fossils documenting the gradual evolution of these organisms. Or how the opposite Sexes evolved separately but parallel. I will do the work. Where do I look? How is this information going to help answer my question? Knowing that might help me find it.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

My usual approach is to get the students to do all the work.

I know you enjoy playing the part of the Professor tutoring the ignorant masses with your Socratic method and referring them to the books you like but that is not using the advantage that forums like this can offer.

It's great to have access to knowledgeable people and you are definitely one of them. But your approach is not at all helpful to those truly seeking a deeper understanding. When the discussion gets into areas of evolution that really are murky and not fully understood by even the latest researchers in the field, it is far more honest to admit that we are not at the point where it is understood.

If in fact there IS a source for the information you are familiar with, then the right thing to do is give a layman's summery of the basic concept. I know in my field of expertise not even the most complex things cannot be translated into an analogy that any high school graduate could understand. I'm sure that is true of all fields including this one.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

When someone truly is "Seeking knowledge" they dont come through with bullshit unshakeable positions that are "mined" and presented as if to deny actual fact.
When I taught, I had a few "unshakeable" IDers (probably 3 over the years-but each of them leaves a fetid taste of defiant ignorance).
Having students actually "Do the work" lets one know where they are coming from and where they seek to go. Theres really NEVER a position of critical thinking to better understand, instead they (and you) are invested in denial of clear evidence and have stated many times that "You dont want to hear anything smacking of science"
I know several "Creationist geoologists and paleontologists" who attempt to mainstream their silly beliefs. They are all a bunch of lying shitheads who ignore their graduate level learning (LIke a geochemist who, when seeking to underpin Creationism, has to forget the rules of methylation and polypeptide linking. They try to argue that all things in the Archeozoic were only " gooey worms" even though they had chitinous tests, some had aragonite shells and some had jointed legs (and two even had proto notochords) .

Im amazed at how these guys will attend graduate schools under stealth acceptance essays and later, after earning a PhD, will suddenly renounce what theyve learned and start preaching for the IDers. It turned out with these guys I know, theyd been Creation /IDers all their lives and just wanted to get their "ticket punched " and come out as "enlightened Creationists"

Rather than preaching love an brotherhood as part of a Christian way of life, they preach deceit , and falsehoods and are lifelong frauds .

They will print self published "technical arguments" that require another scientist to decipher and explain what their fraud was based upon.

SAD really.

Ive NEVER seen any actual evidence from the IDers /Creationists. How come?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

that is not using the advantage that forums like this can offer.

Thats total bullshit. We all come in to this forum with pour minds pre -made-up. Nobody comes in seeking "truth"> Youre whacky if you think that we have any adults open to anything.
My concern is for kids who flit in an out. They are the sponges and hving them dicover on their own and develop questions an resources for answers is what I celebrate.

I know I cant do anything with you and severl others, the "gooey worm" statement says a lot about your open denial of actual science. SCience is moving ahead, it doesnt rest on 1940's "facts" when we know that those have been shown to be incomplete or inaccurate.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Right, when you can't answer the question, just tell them 'they really don't want to know'. Nice.

I clearly said in my original post on the subject that there were some exceptions. Arthropods apparently predated the Cambrian explosion by about 13myrs. (The Chinese discovery you mentioned, I think) Doesn't change a thing about all the other phyla that emerged in the CE.

Your attitude reminds me of Bill Nye's. Here's a recent article quoting him.

Quote:

Bill Nye, "Science Guy," Open to Jail Time for Climate Change Skeptics

Bill Nye, called "The Science Guy" after the kids' show he hosted for PBS back in the 1990s, is up for jailing people who question climate change.

Asked about environmental activist Robert Kennedy's assertion that climate skeptics should be tried as war criminals, the TV personality mused, "We’ll see what happens."

In a discussion of the case being brought by various state attorneys general against ExxonMobil—an action that has led to subpoenas of free-market think tanks such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)—Nye had this to say:

"As a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen... So I can see where people are very concerned about this, and they’re pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like this....That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change, I think that is good."

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know