Why do people deny evolution?

No.
Who is Gunga?

The first humans in our system were living in an ocean world which was a bit warmer than our present world; it figures they would have been dark skinned, as are native Australians.

There is compelling reason to believe that while hominids such as the Neanderthal were native to this planet and would have been well-suited to it, humans are not.

The most major key to the thing involves the axis tilts to the planets, which are now known. The basic idea of the Ganymede Hypothesis is not complicated.

The thing about the four bodies with the rough 26 degree axis tilts (Saturn, Neptune, Mars, Earth) says to assume they were captured as a group. The sun, Mercury, and Jupiter with axis tilts under ten degrees should be assumed to have been an original basic system. That says that our system was originally a dual system with a very bright part to the North and a very dark part (Earth, Mars) inside that Saturnian plasma sheath to the South. The old creatures of the Earth (Hominids, dinosaurs, lemurs, owls, tarsiers...) all had the same huge dark-world eyes; humans and dolphins with the smallest relative eye sizes of advanced creatures should be assumed to have originated within the bright Northern part of the system.

If I wanted to make two paragraphs out of it, I could mention the fact of humans being aquatic mammals (Elaine Morgan's aquatic ape thesis) despite there being no fossil evidence of any kind of an aquatic ape on earth and there never having been a body of water on earth which would be safe for humans to live in. Ganymede (Jupiter's larghest moon), it turns out, would have been a freshwater ocean world some tens of thousands of years ago with both anchored islands and floating bergs of pumice with luxuriant vegetation. The ultralow moment of inertia of Ganymede is due to a deep outer mantel of pumice and not salt water as is commonly claimed.

An original human world would need to be:

1 Bright (the relatively tiny human eyes)
2 Wet (the aquatic adaptations which Morgan mentions) and
3 Safe (both from sea monsters and from cosmic radiation)

Some tens of thousands of years ago, Ganymede had all that.

On Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/514483018695199/

On Youtube:
https://w

ww.youtube.com/channel/UCBZ1RMqjKk8pp_TB_jfeBHQ

Paperback:

https://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Collision-BWE2-Prehistory-System/dp/1981897720

From Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis with a brief commentary from Matt Chait:
To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings with find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus of itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell.
We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines. We would notice that the simplest of the functional components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly, complex pieces of molecular machinery, each one consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial conformation. We would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine – that is one single functional protein molecule – would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will probably not be achieved until at least the beginning of the next century. Yet the life of the cell depends on the integrated activities of thousands, certainly tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of different protein molecules.

We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.

What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle.

To gain a more objective grasp of the level of complexity the cell represents, consider the problem of constructing an atomic model. Altogether a typical cell contains about ten million million atoms. Suppose we choose to build an exact replica to a scale one thousand million times that of the cell so that each atom of the model would be the size of a tennis ball. Constructing such a model at the rate of one atom per minute, it would take fifty million years to finish, and the object we would end up with would be the giant factory, described above, some twenty kilometres in diameter, with a volume thousands of times that of the Great Pyramid.

Copying nature, we could speed up the construction of the model by using small molecules such as amino acids and nucleotides rather than individual atoms. Since individual amino acids and nucleotides are made up of between ten and twenty atoms each, this would enable us to finish the project in less than five million years. We could also speed up the project by mass producing those components in the cell which are present in many copies. Perhaps three-quarters of the cell’s mass can be accounted for by such components. But even if we could produce these very quickly we would still be faced with manufacturing a quarter of the cell’s mass which consists largely of components which only occur once or twice and which would have to be constructed, therefore, on an individual basis. The complexity of the cell, like that of any complex machine, cannot be reduced to any sort of simple pattern, nor can its manufacture be reduced to a simple set of algorithms or programmes. Working continually day and night it would still be difficult to finish the model in the space of one million years.
- Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler and Adler, 1985)


****<<<&>>>****
And let me add my two cents to this astounding picture. The model that you would complete a million years later would be just that, a lifeless static model. For the cell to do its work this entire twenty kilometer structure and each of its trillions of components must be charged in specific ways, and at the level of the protein molecule, it must have an entire series of positive and negative charges and hydrophobic and hydrophilic parts all precisely shaped (at a level of precision far, far beyond our highest technical abilities) and charged in a whole series of ways: charged in a way to find other molecular components and combine with them; charged in a way to fold into a shape and maintain that most important shape, and charged in a way to be guided by other systems of charges to the precise spot in the cell where that particle must go. The pattern of charges and the movement of energy through the cell is easily as complex as the pattern of the physical particles themselves.
Also, Denton, in his discussion, uses a tennis ball to stand in for an atom. But an atom is not a ball. It is not even a ‘tiny solar system’ of neutrons, protons and electrons’ as we once thought. Rather, it has now been revealed to be an enormously complex lattice of forces connected by a bewildering array of utterly miniscule subatomic particles including hadrons, leptons, bosons, fermions, mesons, baryons, quarks and anti-quarks, up and down quarks, top and bottom quarks, charm quarks, strange quarks, virtual quarks, valence quarks, gluons and sea quarks…

And let me remind you again, that what we are talking about, a living cell, is a microscopic dot and thousands of these entire factories including all the complexity that we discussed above could fit on the head of a pin. Or, going another way, let’s add to this model of twenty square kilometers of breath taking complexity another one hundred trillion equally complex factories all working in perfect synchronous coordination with each other; which would be a model of the one hundred trillion celled human body, your body, that thing that we lug around every day and complain about; that would, spread laterally at the height of one cell at this magnification, blanket the entire surface of the earth four thousand times over, every part of which would contain pumps and coils and conduits and memory banks and processing centers; all working in perfect harmony with each other, all engineered to an unimaginable level of precision and all there to deliver to us our ability to be conscious, to see, to hear, to smell, to taste, and to experience the world as we are so used to experiencing it, that we have taken it and the fantastic mechanisms that make it possible for granted........

Denton is a senior fellow at Discovery Institute (where else?) .Hes never let facts get in his way of a heavily "researched" opinion

Gunga used Free Republic as a source on science?

Either you can refute what he says or you can’t. So far you got nothing.

I always thought "Evolution, a theory in crisis" was debunked when Gould took it apart convincingly.(and that was about 30 years ago).

well. Hes one who relies upon his past academic achievement without actually doing any real work that does NOT extol the greatness of Christianity.
But, to not be too technical.

(1.You mean like earning a PhD and doing post-doc is something to base unquestioned beliefs in his opinions)

2. Or , does his "peer reviewed stuff" consist mostly of positions that are merely reviews of others works and in ALL cases he does NOT refer to ID??

3. the coining of terms like" molecular equidistance" are a BS description of baseless chemistry (I consider myself an expert well more advanced than he in applied and physical chem)

4His positions were mostly considered border-line fraud hen Eldredge and Vuletic disemboweled them back in the late 80/s

His status in th Discovery Institute is a mostly political based appointment by an extremely anti-cience organization thats stuck on simple Christianity for the masses (Screw any original thought)

talk Origin Archive maintains a list o "peer review" pubs by IDers and Creation "scientists". These guys all dont do any original ork in their per reviewed works. they are either ocument reviews and asitions to existing science facts without ANY references to ID. OR they are merely rebuttals in journals to other active scientist works.
An example was when Michale Behe commented in a mole chem journal about an article that clearly demonstrated the chain events of enzyme "cascading" that describes bodily fluid clotting (like blood)). Behhe already had developed his "irreducible complexity" based on these similar enzymatic cascades (but Behe stopped after he left the mammals and delved further down the organismal chain)

I didnt wanna be a bore ass with my preaching about Discovery Institute as a fancy name for a Christian Church Cult.But you insisted

I'll take FM's word because I prefer the opinion of actual peer reviewed scientists to a load of religious fanatics who don't know what evidence is.