Why do people deny evolution?

Oh poor thing. You're aware you can google it up?

"Oh poor thing. You're aware you can google it up?"

Yep, you can google up anything, so what are YOu then doing here.

Just answer the question, little boy:

How many pair of chromosomes do humans have?"

You are assuming (in both cases).

You believe it was by trial and error, but how would you know if it was that or the work of an intelligent actor? How can you rule that out?

You also referred to science as a trial and error process. If it really were, progress would come to a virtual halt, Just as evolution would, if left to trial and error.

You can’t build anythin by a process of trial and error without intelligent input at some point. Even if you allow the same 'natural selection' as evolution. You can throw away the failures but you still have to come up with a working prototype.

The instance of actual random mutation resulting in an improvement is exceedingly rare. I doubt it has ever been directly observed, even at the micro level. And even if you managed to see one, how would you know if that mutation was random or the result of a carefully aimed cosmic ray? You could not.


I know evolutionists like to ignore the problem of abiogenesis, but the same problems of probability exist for both cases. If you can’t build a case for abiogenesis, evolution theory is dead. OTOH, ID can explain both.

Evolution makes so much sense, until you look at the 'god of luck and time' that it depends on. It calls for believing in more miracles than any religious fanatic.

I know most here don’t like hearing it but the theory of evolution is not proof either.

As soon as you posit evolutionary theory as 'proof', you are no longer in the realm of science. Neo Darwinists are afraid to let anything else be a competing theory. They feel threatened by them, which is definitely not a scientific attitude.

I think it's interesting that this attitude is almost exclusive to the field of biology. In no other field do you find this kind of emotional resistance to competing theories. There was a time when physicists got emotional about the Big Bang theory opposing Steady State but they got over it. In time I think biologists will too.

Hold on, Perspective is important here.

How do you know that DNA/RNA is not the optimum storage media for biological systems? For the sake of argument, How do you know you are smarter than the intelligence that designed life? Once a designer finds a good solution, he often reuses it over and over. Why reinvent the wheel? That’s why you share so much DNA with every living thing. Hence - DNA is evidence of intelligent design from this perspective.

The only perspective in which Evolution makes more sense is from the perspective of Methodological Naturalism which a priori rules out an intelligent designer. As I pointed out previously, that is not science.

I don't think anybody has ever claimed there is proof for evolution, it's just that it makes the most sense which is why the vast majority of scientists go along with it.

When mainstream scientific opinion states otherwise I'll sit up and take notice. You're the only anti evolution poster who sounds remotely reasonable, most are a bunch of conspiracy theory religious nutjobs. As a rule of thumb it's safe to assume those people are wrong.

I'm not a scientist, never claimed to be, but I'm educated enough to know that we have experts for a reason and it's best to listen to them.

Since you won't answer my questions, and called them stupid, I have no particular reason to answer yours...

Or, the vast majority of scientists (ppl in general) go along with evolutionism because it suits their religious desires. ‘It tickles their ears.’

How appealing to believe a religious teaching that elevates a person to be ‘their own king’ and can dictate their own morality and standard of good and bad.

your right, their is no proof of the kind of evolution that can turn a bacteria into anything but bacteria, never mind a human being.

No, the theory of evolution does not depend on abiogenesis to be true. Even if we get evidence that life on this planet started due to some intervention by some intelligent beings (eg aliens inseminated the earth with some bacteria or another), it would NOT follow that "the theory of evolution is dead".


ID implies one miracle per species. Evolution does not.

"No, the theory of evolution does not depend on abiogenesis to be true. "

Wy then is it in all the textbooks????????????????????????????

I always say first they say that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evil-lotion,
(They use to say it did!!!) and within a few years the idiots will say that evil-lotion has nothing to do with evil-lotion! Mark my wordts! whoaaaaa!!!!

"ID implies one miracle per species. Evolution does not."

Whoaaa! Evil-lotion is a more then a milion miracles!!! Whoaaaa!!!

But if you want to keep it as your religion, be my guest

"Or, the vast majority of scientists (ppl in general) go along with evolutionism because it suits their religious desires. ‘It tickles their ears.’ "


Yes, AND they have to toe the line...or else!

But why would an intelligent designers take millions of year to create species? Why couldn't he do it all in 6 days, or in a split second? Why did he start with simple stuff, and then moved on to more complex stuff? And why did he erase 99% of his work?

All this points to no intelligence at play, and certainly no omniscience at work.

Some people just refuse to accept evolution as the natural thesis of life.

"Some people just refuse to accept evolution as the natural thesis of life."


You seem to forget that one time I believed all the evil-lotion crap!
So I didn't refuse at first. So, your argument is invalid.
But a little digging made me think otherwise. It was just the mathematical improbbalibility of it all and an enormous lack of evidence for evil-lotion. And also there were so many hoaxes! Why invent a hoax if all the crap was real??!!!

"How many chromosomes doe a human have"

"In humans, each cell normally contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, for a total of 46. Twenty-two of these pairs, called autosomes, look the same in both males and females."

So, 23 pair ok?!

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/howmanychromosomes


Now, how many chromosomes does a goldfish has?

"All of this brings up an interesting point about chromosomes. There often isn't a relationship between number of chromosomes and number of genes. For example, we have 46 chromosomes while the simple goldfish has 94 "

https://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask69

A goldfish 94 ??????????????????????????????????

What??????????????????????

Yep DNA is indeed invalidating neo-dwarfs!!!




what a joke the whole evil-lotion is!!

I'm not preaching anything--I leave that to the religious loonies with which this site is all too well provided. Tediously, it appears necessary to repeat that evolution can only take place where life is present. Therefore, "abiogenesis" is irrelevant. It is idiotic, too. No matter what the source of life--even if it were your imaginary friend--you had no life, and then there was life, so it's all abiogenesis. Don't waste our time here with that ICR bullshit. It's creationist propaganda, and it's not even very clever propaganda.

"I'm not preaching anything--I leave that to the religious loonies with which this site is all too well provided. Tediously, it appears necessary to repeat that evolution can only take place where life is present. Therefore, "abiogenesis" is irrelevant. It is idiotic, too. No matter what the source of life--even if it were your imaginary friend--you had no life, and then there was life, so it's all abiogenesis. Don't waste our time here with that ICR bullshit. It's creationist propaganda, and it's not even very clever propaganda."


Wow! I am no creationist BUT you can't lump all of it together and discard it!
That is idiotic and incredibly stupid. Some of their arguments are very very good and some are very very bad. Can't you be more discriminate?
Your belief system is showing here, mate!

Contradiction at its finest. LOL

Excellent summation of the "science of denialim".
We have 4 giys who deny evolution as a natural phenom

1 who is apparently conspiracy theorist who uses Creationist arguments

2 who is a theistic evolutionist who claims tht DNA is a algorithm empowered by a god

3A scientistic IDer who is really trying to understand chemistry as Intelligence"
4 an Honst to goodness fundamentalist

See about the myriad forms that denial can take.

LF--there are erally only about 7 different chemical bonds associqated with all sorts of mole biological reactions. Need they be instituted by an intelligence?? When COOH connects to NH2 we have a max of 400 "kinds" of dipeptides, (Tri, tc (polypeptides are usually anything>10)

Ole guy who engages in Creationist BS but denies it. 23 pair of chromosomes in a humanand a chimp has 24 . Our chromosomes encompass a chimps chromosome 1 and 2. almost perfectly.(We have an additional disulfide bond in a centromere).(How big is the entire genome and many of these are coding)

PS ,Ole guy, your knowledge of applied stats really sucks . Its obviou that LF has been reading some molecular bio books out there in Cripple Crik (or Canyon City-I ferget). YOU SHOULD TAKE TIME ND DO TH SAME

Pushing off from Wilmington if it stops T storms in the AM. YAAARGGGHHH