Why do people deny evolution?

Seems that Douglas Axe, in his lofty perch at Discovery Institute (see, I knew youd ultimately show your hand) is trying to sound profound, and he misses the mark.

cience doesnt much care what the IDers believe, just so they dont parae it around as science and try to promote some waste of money programs to hunt for intelligence.
SO far ll evidence carried out by science supports evolutionary theory and denies any support to ID/Creationism. Im amazed that Creationism still even exists .

His lack of any juried pubications refuting evolution is telling. I think hes afraid of the presentation t conference here his Ms in Biostatistics will be impugned because he only engages in mild insult as a "proof of concept"

Pick one and convince me that you even know of what your tlking about. Youre so quick to mke lists and when we debunk em, you go away for a few months but come back in several moons and just repeat the same ****.

Ya know Goldschmidt realized that he, like Haldane learnt of multi expressions an single expression genes near the end of his career and both he and Haldane mqde the corrections in print.

Also, you know that even Darwin made a really big blunder because he didnt knowabout genes and steered his readers off from facts.
Hoever, hen the science hs grown and evidence mounted where even the Catholic Church abandoned "Special Creation" and ID., you seem to be getting stuck in a smaller rathole .
If I re you, Id really try to ind some fascinating fundamentlist facts from this century. Its getting old hat listening to your chattering about Goldschmidt and fruit flies (weve got maps of All Drosphila melanogaster genes and can actually diddle with em without playing Lamarck.

Nobody could ever think that of you.

I say again, the Haldane dilemma is real and not subject to being debunked, i.e. it is entirely too simple and straightforward, involving only arithmetic and not higher math.

Walter Remine puts a simplified version of the idea thusly:



That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes, in ten million years, you could not get to anything which was close to being human.

That should be good enough for people with rational minds. In fact the debate is not even about that. What the debate is about is the math which indicates that, given more realistic assumptions about rates of substitution, the greatest number of "beneficial" mutations which could be substituted entirely into (fixation) a species in that same 10M years would be two or three thousand. That part of it is like arguing over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and is not needed to grasp the idea.

Evolutionists claim to have debunked that basically irrelevant higher-math part of the thing but even that claim is spurious:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=52:answering-evolutionist-attempts-to-dismiss-haldane-s-dilemma&Itemid=316

And then you get guys like formerman who claim that because some evoloser (falsely) claims to have debunked the esoteric part of the business and the question of evolution requiring quadrillions of years, that the entire concept has been debunked. That is basically propagandizing and lying.

Then you just dont rad. Why is it that you pick up on "Conspircies but not on any of the follow up dta that has accrued in the, say 70+ years since Haldanes "dilemma". Actually it was no dilemma, it was because he failed to recognize that genes can be singly or multi trait expressive. One gene can affect many trits and, many genes can affect ONE.
Haldane didnt know till later and he then said OOOPS. Look it up,(something after 1960) youll feel really dumb for denying this for so many years.

Like Hardy Weinberg, Haldane's expansions use basic algebra.No big time differential equations or Fourier trqnforms.

No single scientist hs claimed to debunk Haldanes "dilemma". He sdid it himself and as genetics became more of a daily tool to evo/devo research, gene expression has revealed itself .

Its kinda embarrassing even bringing it up. Its like denying Mendels Laws , Hardy Weinberg, LINES/SINES. or PAMs.

The only response this post rates is a thumbs down...

I agree: I gave you a thumb's down.

Speaking of "rad read", whatever happened to Remine ??
He was your big "Cost of Natural Selection" guru. didnt he get removed from the OCR board? . Seems that with all his nutzy games with "haldanes Dilemma" where he used fake BB names (I think saw one from the Twin Cities Creation Society where he debated with himself, while setting up a straw argument about lancing guys like Kimura and Rapier ).

I recall his "Cost Theory" paper which got turned down by Theoretical Genetics Journal for being kind of a shill for Creationism and without any merit or uniqueness. (They sometimes will publish some really rad articles).

He sorta made a brief appearance in 2010 and then ent away again .Ill have to see where hes at now.

There are bunches of well funded Creation Organizations in the US today.GO HERE AND YOULL SEE

Basic reality: evolution is not being defended by anybody with brains or talent in today's world; it is being defended by academic dead wood.

Go no further, in Europe the vast vast majority of Religious people, even in Southern Europe, believe in Evolution without a blink. Believe it or not they look at the US Creationist phenomena and the 6000 years Earth with awe...
No wonder black n white simpleminded folk think the vast majority of Americans are dumb as dumbness can afford to be. The recent election of Trump just reinforced that feeling. If you guys had a clue on what is said bout Murikans on closed doors worldwide you would hide behind a curtain n never get out of home...thankfully most of Americans is autistic to the world's perception of them. They think they rule the gang.

sadly youre right. But hey, theres so many of us, were like the infinite number of chimpanzees at an infinite number of dobro guitars. Some ofus will play Jerry Douglas.

Doesnt it make you wonder, if were all so damned dumb, who's doing all the the science research?
SUrely not Discovery Institute or the "bumpr sticker crowd" of Creationist ministtries that cant ven com up with a convincing story of the Grand Canyon.

You may be a fringe bunch of clowns but, we defend to the death, your right for 50 or more of you to pile out of an Isetta .

...oh Farma you should just ignore these guys as much as possible...I think part of the problem back there is that you gave these guys to much attention. Back here people just slam the door in the face of the Neanderthals that attempt to preach such nonsense. They never had the chance of even getting to news on tv to start with...

...there is an old saying here...you don't debate with a dog, you condition its behaviour...

You obviously mean all of the government funded science research...

But real science has been starting to get funding even before the Trump takeover:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1FYjZ77eew

There. That. Again.

During this and similar threads I have put forth the scientific basis for my arguments and the reply is almost universally just a flat statement that "It's not scientific".

I'm open to argument about it but not just simple negation or charging that it's religion based. You have to back that up with a specific reason why it's not scientific if that is your argument.

And as I've said many times, just because a scientist has religious beliefs does not negate his scientific argument. Nowhere does Douglas Axe (just for example) invoke any religious premise, nor do I. You are the one who introduced an unwarranted charge of 'religion' into this recent exchange.

You are correct that none of us is on the leading edge of evolution research so we rely on experts for recent developments in evolution. The trouble is, you are relying completely on the relatively old accepted dogma about it, not the latest research which even the experts in the field acknowledge as 'troubling' to the conventional views on evolution. The fact that they are looking for a 'Third Way' to explain evolution should tell you that there is legitimate reason that the experts realize there are problems with the conventional view of evolution.

There are not 1 in a million average people like us who even attempt to keep up with developments in this field, I don't see evidence that there are more than a couple in this thread who do. Most accept evolution as 'settled science'. It isn't.

Unfortunately, you have to understand how our Constitution works. We cant, by law, "silence" denial, we can only make sure that it doesnt be made into umb laws(like the old Butler Act). By doing so, we have to rise to its challenge (and they know that). Look at all the slick ads these guys put out. They know that their crap is Full of gobbledeegook, neologisms, "scientistic talk" and just plain lies. They, in the spirit of religious freedom, are compelled to deny all the progress that many coalescing branches of science have made. They feel that they are right and we MUST give them their time to display how stupid they sound, otherwise , their credibility just grows by our silence. Part of our problems here is that most of science has born little "priesthoods" that often sound jut like religions, what with "inside" references tht require study to understqnd, and jargon filled discussions. I know I tqlk "Research Rock-tlk" qherever Im at nd my wife is always kicking me.
Many Scientific journals (including Elsevier on your side) have decided to come up with "Plain Language" abstracts of their work because, many times, the scientific jargon we use to communicate among disciplines, doesnt connect with people who arent workers in a field but are interested in sciences as amateur scientists. The Creqtionists love this because they can spout their scientism and noone really is wiser. Many open minded people feel that both sides have some merit.

I let gunga go because hes never failed to demonstrate how baseless his claims are. (Witness his "genetic entropy" and his defenses of "Dilemma").
Were now in a possible lawsuit with a Creationist Organization in another state based on religious freedom and "Right of Assembly" (like a charter school) and they love to play "VICTIM"> because we , the science "Inc" deadwood are crushing these new and novel "scientific" hypotheses from being taught in charter schools (which , in most states,receive about half (or more) of their funding from the taxpayers )

So far, all the concepts these guys have raised have been shot down by exposing them to debate among powers within a court environment.
YOU GUYS do not have to **** with much of that so, rather than painting ourentire population with a brush of ignorance (I was partially kidding above), please understand that we are quite happy with our basis of law. It affords anyone n OPPORTUNITY to be heard. AND!!! most importqntly, these ID qnd Creationist guys account for less than 0.5% of the population

Wow. I thought it was bad when peoples' argument is dismissed as 'religious'.
You take it to a new level.

Well, not so new come to think of it. I'm sure you can think of other examples where that tactic is used.

but 0.05% of our population is still bout 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE. Roughly the population of Washington DC