Why do people deny evolution?

What is the issue with heat, cold, and temperature in this thread? Why is it relevant regarding evolution?

Personnally I voted it down because I saw the post as a gratuitous jibe that totally missed the point I was making. It was at -2 prior to my vote so at least 3 other people had an issue with Set's post.

The engine of evolution is life. The fuel of evolution is new information. Extinction is the "go-no go" guage.

well, youre wrong.

I looked back to see why it was raised. You raised it. Set pointed out, in his inimitable way, that what you said was silly, scientifically. I see now that you didn't mean it scientifically. I was just struck that Set's post had been voted down 3 times for stating a scientific fact.

I don't think so. Could you explain?

Evolution is really about the evolution of information.

For information to evolve in a productive way (higher complexity in life forms for instance) it has to be managed in a productive manner doesn't it?

Death is very good at choosing what is not good (productive) information to introduce into a system that is evolving to a higher life form.

So, what is good at introducing information that is productive for a higher life form?

And when you say extinction is part of the engine and since death could be looked at as a naturally imposed decision to terminate a certain type of system?

Wouldn't this natural decision making process that extinction is a part of, better be described as natural decision making system like an algorithm rather than an engine because, an engine drives on without making decisions on which biological system survives or not.

Leaving aside your self-serving "information" bullsh*t, what is good at selecting evolutionary success is effective breeding opportunity.

And effective breeding opportunity is brought about by a living healthy bioligical organism. It looks like we are agree life is the main component of the engine of evolution not extinction.

Why does recognizing that living organsms evolve by managing information according to an Algorithm make me self-serving? It appears to be obvious that effective breeding opportunities is anatural form of information management.

When? What post?

It's self-serving because you use terms such as information and algorithm to suggest that there is an intelligence behind the process. There's no evidence for what you suggest.

It might as well be said--Livinglava has implied that all chemistry is about ions and electrons. That suggests that she knows nothing about chemistry. Certainly all atoms have one or more electrons. And certainly valance bonds form with the interaction of outer shell electrons. But to state that all of chemistry can be summed up with ions and electrons is just silly. An ion is a elemental atom which has lot an electron, or gained an additional electron. Not only are not all atoms ions, but the majority of atoms are not ions. Generally speaking, ions occur in a bonding process in which one atom loses one or more (usually only one) electron, and the atom to which it bonds gains that electron. In covalant bonds, neither of (or none of, when more than two elements are involved) the elemental atoms loses or receives an electron. So there is certainly a good deal of chemistry in which ions are not involved at all.

Covalant bonds are much less energetic and might (misleadingly) be described as weaker bonds. That's misleading because so many factors affect chemical bonds. So, for example, above the datum on Mars, atmospheric pressure is so weak that any water that rises to the altitude dissociates into hydrogen and oxygen. That occurs were the atmospheric pressure drops to nearly as low as six millibars.

Ionic bonds, however, are extremely energetic and might be described as stronger bonds. Atmospheric pressure has little effect on ionic bonds (I'd say no effect, but of that I'm not certain). Heat is about the only environmental factor which can cause ionic bonds to dissociate. So with sodium chloride (commonly just called salt, which is misleading), its bond remains in place at all temperature up to about 800 degrees centigrade, at which point it dissociates. (EDIT: That's a false statement. At 800 degrees centigrade, sodium chloride undergoes a phase change and becomes a liquid. It is very unstable, and that might be a circumstance in which the ionic bond is weakened to the point that in low atmospheric pressure, the chemicals would dissociate.)

Really, you shouldn't be talking about chemistry at all.

My sincere apologies - it was actually Olivier5 being quoted by grumpy - I confused myself because I have Olly on ignore and I thought grumpy was replying to you. Mea culpa.

The fact that the terminology works logically is evidence. I gain nothing for myself by recognizing that pattern. You can gain eternal life by recognizing that pattern.

Olivier was using snidely humor about a response I made to Grumpy. Set just misunderstood the context. No biggie.

Did you now? Doesn't matter most of the time i don't read your lines, because you clearly have no clue with regards to evil-lotion.

Leaving aside that what you claim is not logical, logic is not evidence. What you gain with your silly narrative is the opportunity to claim that there is an intelligence in operation--trying to get your religious bullsh*t in through the back door. The application of you silly narrative is not necessary to explain biological evolution.

But what is more hilarious, and sadly pathetic, is this claim about "eternal life." Jesus wept, do you folks ever even think about the implications of your goofy claims? Not only can you not substantiate this "eternal life" bullshit, but who would want that? It would get pretty damned boring after the first few centuries, never mind eternity. Really, drop the happy chatter and actually think what your claim would mean.

I'm sure you avoid reading whatever conflicts or interferes with the POVs you want propagated.

You probably read what someone else has to say until you establish that their POV is one you want to squelch, and then you start squelching it.

I think there are a lot of people like you. They dislike open public discourse so they use it as an opportunity to squelch POVs they want gone.

Free-speech-based fascism?

Really? I think you left out a factor here.
And you lecture others on chemistry?

This sounds like an interesting discussion, but it is really tangential to evolution, so why don't you start a different thread on it?

What factor would that be, Einstein? Enlighten us from the depths of your wisdom on chemistry and conditions on the planet Mars.