Why do people deny evolution?

I love you too, hon.

What Gould implied was that evolution of genomes are defined by changes in germ cell lines . Thats where he got the "DNA is but the bookkeeping of evolution"

I’m just not sure why that is Regarded as profound. And technically not even accurate. As the theory goes, WAY more of the changes were lost over evolutionary time. All you have now are the surviving changes.

Could we get back to DNA based information and how it compares to programmed information?

Every post I read of yours, Leadfoot, seems to be you, trying to keep the "scientist" farmerman, focused and not trying to mislead.

I feel your pain.

the changes are not lost in the genome. They hang around as pseudogenes. A yeast's coding genome is 3X bigger than that of humans

Answering the actual question originally posed. i.e. why do people deny it. A thought provoking look at denialism
https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2018/sep/03/denialism-what-drives-people-to-reject-the-truth-podcast

Good article, Boss.

I thought so too, Set. It described you, farmer, max, ci, Beth, and a whole lot of other folks to a T.

. That may happen occasionally but not usually. Negative mutations must of necessity be recessive and eventually disappear, if not, there would be no room in the geneome for the literally millions/billions of advantageous ones. It would be game over if every negative mutation were stored and conserved because they outnumber the good ones a billion to one, and that’s according to the theory that you support.

Note that multiple copies don’t add any functionality unless modified. The same thing happens in software by accident. Computer memory can get filled up with duplicate copies of subroutines in poorly written software.

As has been said before, size isn’t everything.
Did that pass your humor test. I failed Set's miserably.

Thanks for getting back on the biological comparisons to software code though.

It is a bit like hurting cats. Appreciate the sympathy.

I meant 'herding' dammit.

If ya can’t win the argument, call them delusional or 'Truth Deniers'.
Damn good strategy.

The guardian??????????????????

lol

No bias there eh?!

lol

There's bias everywhere. People with analytical skill sift through it and account for it.

It's not a Guardian reporter, it's an opinion piece by Keith Kahn-Harris, a sociologist with scholarly work published in peer-reviewed journals.

You should read it - it's actually an interesting take, and ends up in a position of sympathy with denialists as the post-denialists move in.

But hey - who needs to contemplate new thoughts when your mind's made up?

I don’t doubt that denial is an actual phenomenon. It’s actually an area of interest of mine. I’ve been following various groups in which denial is fairly obvious in order to understand how it works. I mean groups that believe things like G. W. Bush personally plotted 9-11, only alien technology could have built the pyramids, planes are leaving chemtrails of mind control drugs and reptilian aliens are behind the Illuminati.

These people are usually self evident in that their stories are self contradictory. The many people including a number of scientists who question evolution display none of the characteristics typical of the delusional or deniers who need self contradictory stories to make their logic work.

TL/DR: Just because you doubt the theory of Neo-evolution doesn’t mean you are a denier.

Of course they do. They share a disdain for mainstream science and opinion, a reluctance to take any clear positive stance, a fear and avoidance of facts, etc. You included.

Again, do some research first

Doesn't matter. it is published by The Guardian. Known not to be trusted.

Well, I had once sudied physics and math and clinical psychology at university level.
After a few years I started researching a lot of alternative fields, and found out that way, how extremely wrong 'mainstream' science is , on so many subjects.
Like evolution shite, black hole bollocks. quantum physics fantasies, cosmology stupidity, medicine quackery , stupid mathematics, and so on and so forth. Hence , yes, I developed a very very very deep disrespect for "mainstream science". But AFTER I did the research, not before. (hint, hint, hint )

what wwere some of your key areas of inquiry that turned you off??

so you dont buy radioisotopic age determination but you do "believe " in nuclear energy??