Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

The new guy, whose standard method of condemning science and education is to say that it is "dumb<' claims not to be religious. However, as he never has any valid evidence for alternative points of view, and relies on saying that modern science is "dumb," he may just as well be a religious fanatic, because he's got nothing better to add to any discussion.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

are you sure? Wink

checked the combination between statistics and evolution?

I know..I know...

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I do GAS about what anyone has to say in defence of their views and I am interested in how Quehoniaomath makes the case. By being so interested I have found that phrase "paradigm police" which, as you know, is a state of mind I have often mentioned though never with such skill.

Prof Gray makes the same point with "scientific censorship". You choose the science most useful for the purpose I described above. Not theology of course. Despite Spengler saying that Theology was, along with Physics and Mathematics, the only sciences left. 100 years ago.

Science is not on the agenda. Dick-work is on the agenda. Always was. Even before number was invented.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Apparently, you don't know much. What is the combination of statistics and evolution which you allege falsifies a theory of evolution? You are always ranting on these topics, but you don't provide any evidence. Don't expect to be taken seriously if you can't provide such evidence.

1 Reply

@spendius,

your cominmg close,

actually 'science' is really a disguised religion.

I know it sounds bizarre because we are all indoctrinated 'science' is not a religion.

when I man 'religion' I am talking about the structure of 'modern science'

it is a very deep issue and there are very goood books explaining this all in depth.

'science' is also a 'religion'because it if full of dogma's.
ever seen a free thinkibng profesor? very few offcourse.

I know...attack the meesenger.

who cares? Wink

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Apparently, you don't know much. What is the combination of statistics and evolution which you allege falsifies a theory of evolution? You are always ranting on these topics, but you don't provide any evidence. Don't expect to be taken seriously if you can't provide such evidence. .

I agree with Socartes, i know very very little, this is true.

just start reading, e.g:

Quote:

Physicist Dr. Lee M. Spetner's new book has biologists and geneticists across the country praising this book as one of the most serious challenges to the modern theory of evolution. "Dr. Spetner has an extraordinary ability to present complex mathematical, statistical, and biological issues in a comprehensible manner."--Rabbi Joseph Elias, The Jewish Observer "It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read"--Professor E. Simon, Department of Biology, Purdue University
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Shattering-Modern-Evolution/dp/1880582244/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398628758&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=not+by+change!+spetner

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

every coupla years someone not in the associated science tries to make up arguments against evolution. "Interesting and Thought Provoking" does not imply "Im buying this twaddle". publishers usually stop short of denouncing the stuff in between the covers. After all, they do wish to sell books.

2 Replies

Reminds me of Kirkus Reviews and Publishers' Weekly, neither of which ever read a book they didn't love.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

and textbooks! Wink

There a yea go

or you can start reading the book.

I know I know you won't because minds firewalled by big bricks won't.

that's ok.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

I see. You, in fact, can't sustain your claim about statistics and evolution, so you advise that i read a book. I'll treat you with serious consideration at such point as you demonstrate that you are able to articulate a rational basis, with evidence, for your claims. Telling me to read a book doesn't wualify.

0 Replies

Here, Bubba, read a good book . . .

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ExEO-04CL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

It should vastly expand the range of your rants against traditional science and education.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

OK, tell me three basic tenets of the Plasma Cosmo.. hypothesis That refute modern Physics.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

publishers usually stop short of denouncing the stuff in between the covers. After all, they do wish to sell books.

There is a niche market fm which takes denouncing as far as their wits will carry them. The small but avid readers in that particular market are provided with what is to them music to the ear. The publishers of the genre do seem to have gathered in the Home Counties and the N.E. Tidewater states of the US from where television is more or less controlled and in proximity to financial centres.

Whether all this causes any flexibility to invade science's rigid paradigm is a matter for each reader to consider. To fail to consider it is already introducing the flexibilities which are, as a matter of course, heretical.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

All yous idecar drivers are trying your damnedest to use all sorts of irrelevant stuff to try to "blow smoke up our asses" in the hopes that you can bundle your crap into something that people will buy as an argument refuting evolution. Im gonna demand that you stay on track.
I brought up an example of how menhaden in Connecticut Rivers that have been dammed since the mid 1700's are evolving into actual super species level (almost new genera)
All because the fish hve been prevented from being anadromus, so they've developed all sorts of new phenotypes that allow them to adapt to the fresh water environement laden with diatoms and algae. They've actually evolved into smaller leaner forms with different fin patterns, almost disappeared teeth and the beginning of gill rakers (like baleen) to strain the algae as their new diet.
As far as Galapogos finches, Princeto university has been tracking evolutionary adaptations and body changes among finches and crabs of the islands.
All these adaptational changes can be seemn in our lifetimes and the menhaden can be inferred from the 1700;s because that's when the anadromous forms were "captured" behind the dam breasts and prevented from migrating to sea.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

But, as has been explained to you, the fish will revert to what they were before as soon as the artificial barriers to their urges are removed. You are suggesting that the barriers have swamped their DNA. Which I think highly unlikely.

And--

Quote:

As far as Galapogos finches, Princeto university has been tracking evolutionary adaptations and body changes among finches and crabs of the islands.

means nothing aside from the funds. It isn't even smoke.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

But, as has been explained to you, the fish will revert to what they were before as soon as the artificial barriers to their urges are removed.

maybe, maybe not. You didn't "explain nothing" You merely "Bet" that they would revert. That's how evolution works sometimes it takes , sometimes it dies.
What doesn't die , makes it stronger to THAT environment and the genes begin to record it.

We still have the genes for our embryonic "yolk sack", theyve just turned off in the ensuing 50 million years

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The idea that those fish have evolved is anti-evolutionary. It is a desperate grab too far and you ought to recognise it.

No sooner was the soot and grime shifted off the trees the moths reverted to their light colours. I know the fish will revert.

1 Reply

@spendius,

the "moth" story is merely an example of a MECHANISM of evolution. The adaptation by the peppered moth to a new "wallpaper" I for tourists to be able to see how nature works (all without the deeper math and organic chemistry).
The fish have actually made great leaps into fitting wthin a new niche entirely. They don't hunt anymore, they've developed gill rakers to become filter feeders. "Unevolving all their new systems would be an act of evolution in itself).
I really cant help if youre that dim .

The scientists who made the fish discoveries are asking that the USFW service allow them to continue studying the menhaden "To see what happens".
Scientific discovery is built not upon preconceived predictions without evidence. Failure to observe any evidence is wjat is "Anti-evolutionary"
Id expect that from the Creationists, not one who claimed to have been a druggist

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The scientists who made the fish discoveries are asking that the USFW service allow them to continue studying the menhaden "To see what happens".

Funds. The main driver in the evolution of scientists.

You're into bat for Lamarck.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Failure to observe any evidence is what is "Anti-evolutionary"

Christianity is anti-evolutionary from a biological point of view. It's a dam. What biological changes has it produced in healthy human constitutions?

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know