Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

Quote:

(And it took less than 20 million years as the "original sites" of this family began to become inundated and separated as Pangea was in its final throes of separation. )

That's part of the problem. I don't think 20myrs could account for nostrils moving from those snouts to blow holes in that time frame with mutation and natural selection. And that's assuming that it did happen.

It's Another example of 'gratuitous optimization'.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

That's part of the problem. I don't think 20myrs could account for nostrils moving from those snouts to blow holes in that time frame with mutation and natural selection.

Isn't that just your problem?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Isn't that just your problem?

Oh most certainly. Science and Problem solvers thrive on problems. Without problems or when sweeping problems under the rug, you aren't doing science or problem solving.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Leadoff knows how to ask questions, but ignores the answers provided. There's no cure for stu.......

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Or people that can't wait 90 seconds to post again...

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

In 83 easy graphics. http://www.slideshare.net/drpuls/anatomy-embryological-development-of-nose

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

CI, you are a master of posting irrelevant links.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

thats just another part of the "features" on the cetcean pre model. I was referring to the auditory canals and the middle ear.

Quote:

That's part of the problem. I don't think 20myrs could account for nostrils moving from those snouts to blow holes

You seem to have these "feelings" but no evidence to support your position. Yet the evidence through Carolinicetus and pachycetus (and at least 2 other transitional fossils) seems to say different than what you "think"

Apparently you DO try to read but maybe comprehension is your bugaboo. If evidence shows a migration of the middle ear and occuption of a totally different function in 20 my, and the "nostrils" migrating further north. Think of the differences achieved in less than 25K years with the nostril designs of the polar bear v its "grand uncles" the brown bears. The genetic changes are quite modest .

As it was said,(sorta) "noo matter what evidence is out there, if they wish to deny it, noone can talk any scense into them"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

But, you do keep trying. LOL

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

You're trying to make it other's problem though. I don't know why they indulge you, I'm not bothered whether or not you believe or even understand the theory of evolution.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Its a standard Creationist debate trick that Leadfoot uses (but denies continually that he is not of the cloth). There is really no basis of testable or falsifiable evidence to underpin his "beliefs". His only debate trick is to try to cast doubt on the fact and evidence of science.

SO far, in the 13 yers of this very debate (or something like it), the arguments from the Cretionits /IDers have scrolled around very few points , all of which are beaten to death by the LEadfeet of the world. Theyve nothing new to add, BUT, at the same time(since 2003) The understanding of gene transfer, the fossil record, several newere tricks on radio isotope decay "clocks" and human paleontology have almost DOUBLED in their knowledge bases.

In the real world, it matters not whether the Leadfeets are convinced or not. None of their beliefs can be used to add anything of use to our stable of science and technology. They dont even know how to apply the Popperian rules of falsifiation / verification.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You're trying to make it other's problem though. I don't know why they indulge you, I'm not bothered whether or not you believe or even understand the theory of evolution.

It doesn't bother me either that you, farmer, et al, can't understand that I have questions about abiogenesis and evolution that have nothing to do with religion or theism. If it makes you more comfortable to pigeon hole them as religiously inspired, that's fine for you but I don't have to agree.

I accepted evolution as taught up until I peered into the cell (via modern science's findings) and bounced it against everything else I've come to know about physics/reality. I think scientists are missing the obvious about their own findings. I am perfectly aware of how far out of the mainstream that puts me and I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

The same is true in virtually every other area of life and taking this road less traveled has made all the difference and made me happy in every respect.

I'm sorry you see it as 'making it your and others' problem'. You and farmer seem like fine chaps and I wish nothing less than happiness for you.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I understand it all right but I don't know why you think your inability to conceive a concept makes it invalid, or why you think people should try to help you conceive. IVF can only go so far.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I think scientists are missing the obvious about their own findings

which is what?

If youve got a path to another truth, science is really the only open mind around. we may argue and call each other names but its all for a better understanding .

As I said before, while science continually moves along with new discoveries that support a complete synthesis of life, the deniers dont seem to come from any point of scientific inquiry. They com from a point of wanting to PROTECT a myth based belief system in which the careful studies in science are unacceptable.
In the last 10 or so years weve pretty much put away the entire questions of "sufficient" examples of evolution in many many clades.
PS, you say you "accepted" evolution as taught. Did you then stop any further study because you somehow had a breakthrough in compring biology to physics??
Thats a common argument posed by many Creationists who wish to conflate data from areas not even related.
Id be really interested in how we should make these"obvious" connections

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I understand it all right but I don't know why you think your inability to conceive a concept makes it invalid

No, no, I get the concept just fine. It's a thing of beauty, elegant and simple after you grasp the necessary understanding of DNA. It's not invalid at all and I don't blame anyone for thinking 'it explains everything', it's a very seductive answer.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

It's not invalid at all and I don't blame anyone for thinking 'it explains everything', it's a very seductive answer.

It's far more compelling than seductive. And most importantly, it's enlightening. It informs us and makes predictions which can be tested and which contribute to the consilience between scientific disciplines.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Thats a common argument posed by many Creationists who wish to conflate data from areas not even related. Id be really interested in how we should make these"obvious" connections

If you compartmentalize areas as you say you do, the job of making those connections is by definition - impossible. I've been working on a book (I can see your eyes rolling) that attempts to do that for some time but virtually every post I've made in a2k points at those connections, even the ones in 'advice to the lovelorn' threads.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

testability, verifiability, falsifibility, and predictions made "by means of" are all things that science provides us that cannot be artfully denied.

Like Dawkins said, "Its a fact cause it works"

period.

Anybody who wishes to supplant his or her new theories, needs to do it by means of strong evidence, not denial of a theory that has stood the test of time and science.

we are back to Wandel's original query "Intelligent Design, is it science or religion?"

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

It's far more compelling than seductive.

It is compelling too, but the seduced never suspect that they are.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I guarantee that Ill read it.

You seem to think that you are the only one who has looked at the laws of physics and chemistry. Thats just another area that your ed needs some bolstering.
Atomic theory is quite comfortable with laws of combinations of ions and elements. The concepts of universal gas laws also fit quite nicely to Phase rule in "chemical erosion an surface reactions" ALL NECESSARY f(life).

Orbitals and transorbitals, energy states and chemistry of the living state, again, fit nicely with no "bumps" visible. We cant negate one law of science in oorder to "fit" another. You seem to think that this is being done all the time???

IM still not sure where youre coming from on your original statement a
bout how your inspection of such laws of physics and comparing them to evolution theory has provided you with an "obvious" point of departure from the scientific model we now enjoy.

Make sure you have your book vetted , unless its gonna be a Dan Vendramini or WEric von Daniken type of science book.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know