Why do people deny evolution?

The so-called Plump base, though, aren't the only ones who, ideologically, have long denied climate change. Yeah, they're becoming less vocal. I don't think Plump's base are there entirely for him--many people dislike Clinton and many of them voted simply as conservatives. Denying scientific research has a way of biting people in the @ss, though.

But will it really? I read in the paper the other day that China is building a coal plant somewhere of the African coast...

Isn't the main problem that coal plants are relatively cheap to run, since coal is so readily available? Doesn't that make them economically viable, if you disregard the impact on the environment that is?

Indeed, i should have restricted my comment to the so-called 'first world'.



Same pattern applies to climate change by the way: the high level of support amongst scientists contrasts with low support among the American public, while other developed nations don't have the same divide between their public and scientific opinions.

I printed that chart, I can use it in upcoming discussions at schoolboard meetings. Where did it originate? just ahead of Turkey eh?? He He

I got it from wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Im not certain that the coal plants are cheply run, especially if they want a combined cycle unit(where they burn off gases too). That makes the coal plant efficient .
US is a relatively small number of countries that frack for gas

We’ve never been able to talk about biology for more than about three exchanges before it devolves into you calling me a religious nutcase or such so that ship has probably sailed.

But what you said here got me thinking about a paper I’m writing and maybe we can stay on course on this related topic. The subject concerns the proper tool to look at any given subject. In the past you have told me I've only got one tool in the box and it’s the wrong one for looking at biology.

You (and most others I’d guess) would say that your expertise in chemistry is obviously the better tool for looking at biology compared to my EE/IT perspective. From your perspective, biological life is the sum total of the chemical/electrochemical reactions that proceed according to the well understood chemical reactions that occurs between the various elements and molecules that make up the organism. It’s as straight forward as C + O2 —-> CO2 when looked at in detail. No one could argue about the facts of any one of those reactions.

In spite of that, I think that chemistry is not the best primary tool for analyzing what the nature of biological life is and how it works. Obviously chemistry is is going to be necessary but as you have pointed out, one tool is not enough.

Analyzing a living organism by chemistry alone is like an electrical engineer who never heard of a computer trying to analyze one with just a volt meter and oscilloscope. Given enough time, he could eventually tell you how every gate and transistor in it operated and what happened when any of the buttons on it were pushed. He'd tell you that it is complex but it’s all ones and zeros, that it’s really as simple as 1 + 1 = 10.
He would be right about everything. But if that is all he did, he would not understand what the computer really was, he would not know the essence of what computers are or what it’s real potential is.

So if you would like to discuss it in this light, here's what I propose. I’ll start a thread with the subject line Biological organisms are primarily Software Defined Lifeforms. - Yes or No?

I will of course take the affirmative. First one to mention anything about religion or God loses. Deal?

That is farmerman in a nutshell. Most often it doesn't take that long.

Don't you know it, Setanta!? You can't get away from being a hypocrite. As soon as you open your mouth you put your foot in it.

I dont think Ive said that biochem was the ONLY tool. When I look at dta and evidence its common to serch out information from other disciplines. We dont usually rely on one ina seveloping theoory. We do use only one when we re looking for data.

WHen Im doing a reservoir assessment, Ill be fcusing on the organic loading within drill holes (usually small diameter sampes and cores). I will rely upon detailed geophysics and stratigraphic mapping to assist and pinpoint drill sites. Then we will use a Forameniferalogist (A specialist in invertebrate paleo) to most closely pick and rank where we drill first. The application of multiple overlapping disciplines helps define the work and the theory.
Bill Dembski is a puter guy who makes his entire argument using one technology. He seems to ignore what the fossil record shows.

WRiting a paper is good. I would be honored to read it and try to understand its argument (Im not a great one at coding etc).
I think, as you write your paper you hould look at some of the information about the banded iron formations of the "pre Ediacaran ".Mesabi Range Hematites and Western Australian iron ranges. The iron carbonates and oxy hydroxides take on a curious DNA double helical structure and can be seen to have been preserved s fossils quickly in their "growth stages"

OK, we agree that more than one tool is necessary. But my question was about which one was the best for determining the fundamental nature of biological organisms.

Your technical asides are often interesting and mostly accurate, but unrelated to the question. Are they just put there to give your answers a patina of expertise?

I posited that - All biological organisms are fundamentally Software Defined Lifeforms.. Agree or not? If it’s true, obviously Information Technology would be the better tool.

Biiiiiingoooooo!!!

So does silencing the other side with boycotts and actual censorship. Some theories about climate change have been debunked. The MSM will not expose that ass to critics of climate change. One sided propaganda driven for the carbon tax meant to redistribute wealth and make the world dependent on governments. That is globalism.

Yousee tht crack is cobbled up from a non-existent knowledge basis regarding bio chemistry. ALL combinations of chemicals that are pre biotic re based on less than 10 different combinatory means.

Chemicals dont need a bauplan to combine. You are so obsessed with the bar codes that you forget about the **** thats in the can.

I dont take your anti chemistry critique coming from a good understanding of bio chem or molecular biology.

The Miller Urey experiment wasnt WRONG it was naive. Miller and Urey and the grad students did NOT understand the Hadean environment and they should hve been concentrating more on chemical kinetics in a more acidic reducing envirionment.

Even though they didnt go beyond several basic pyrimidines an a purine, the reaction DID produce them without any help from above.
Rather than trying to defend your position from a set of unfriendly smacks at me, why not get your paper completed nd submit it (or self -publish it).

(OH yeh, now JTT will hang all over you. You are now her best friend, until you disagree with her ) FREE ATLASS FREE ATLASS GOOD KOOPACAROU I FREEATLASS!!

What if, as Steve Gould aid over and over, DNA is merely the bookkeeping of evolution, not its cause.

could you name one?

Arctic ice has been increasing. Also just the fact that Earth has experienced weather for billions of years I doubt anyone can predict the cycles it will go through. It is a scheme and a distraction. And little do with how man became man.

actually , the seasonal thicks and thins for Arctic Ice has shown a pretty deep decline since focused monitoring begn in th early 1970's. The NYT published a NOAA graph that compared the seasonal ice curves of thickness since 1970 and , except for 1 year when an El Nin'o interfered the ice decline is measurable (coupled with n increase of fresh meltwater in the Upper Arctic Ocean and a DECREASE in ocean water temp).
The argument abiur "weather" was around for billions of years and Id agree but measurable affect of humankind on the world climate is also real. Fresh water streams are tumbling into the deep North Atlntic and there i concern that the Gulf Stream will be losing its affect . Ireland will no longer be marine temperate to low subtropical, it will begin to have a climate like its neighbor across the street, LABRADOR.

You have again reverted to the 'You don’t know **** about bio-chem'. With no explanation of what the supposed error is. Disappointing, but I’m used to it.

I acknowledge all the **** in the can/organism. I’ll give you all the chemistry **** you want in there, don’t add or subtract a single amino acid, but reorder the bits in its DNA only a tiny bit and all you’ve got is a can of **** or a rotting pile of hydrocarbons, it’s no longer an organism.

No comment on the thread yet? Your friends aren’t doing so well there.

Why does some science scare you silly, farmerman?