Why do people deny evolution?

@vikorr,

Quote:

Glad that we agree then, that as a comparison between the breeds, evolution can be involved in dogs mutating, some into:
- long bodied animals, and some into short bodied
- very large animals, and some into very small
- very hairy animals, and some into almost hairless
- very fast animals, and some into much slower
- etc

Many creationists are very uncomfortable with the implications of such drastic mutations (drastic in terms of comparative size, speed, muscle, etc).

I've still not seen any creationist provide a explanation for the very unique animals in Australia - ie. one that meets the beliefs contained in the bible.

My favourite is an admission that the story of creation is just that - a story, and that there is nothing wrong with evolution being guided by God's hand. At least that one makes sense, if you wish to believe in a God.

But that would bring us back to the topic of the thread - Why do people deny evolution?

But STILL A DOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~

and, again, I have nothing to with religions including science!

And hwy deny? LACK OF EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gee

0 Replies

And if Grumpy dies from a mutated bacterium or virus in the future, he can have ' Got it !' inscribed on his headstone.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

And if Grumpy dies from a mutated bacterium or virus in the future, he can have ' Got it !' inscribed on his headstone.

I never wrote they didn't mutate. But if they do the bacteria stays a bacteria and will never change into a monkey or whatever.
Otherwise we would be swamped with monkeys, right?

Difficult, eh?

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

Many creationists are very uncomfortable with the implications of such drastic mutations (drastic in terms of comparative size, speed, muscle, etc).

I don’t see why they would be. The relatively lightning fast 'evolution' of dog breeds could be interpreted as evidence that random chance (a fundamental ingredient of Neo Darwin theory) could not possibly explain it, even with the accelerated artificial selection.

An alternate theory is that the dog genome already contained all those traits and we simply preferentially selected for the ones we wanted. That is equally or more plausible than Neo Darwin theory.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Its similr to roach'es acquire immunity to sugar baits. The German Cockroach has a wide gen variability for the affinities for sugra. So the roach variety that is less aattracted to sugars will be selected for continuation and the sugar lovers will die off. Consequently, the road from a microadaptation to genic chnge has been set by human intervention

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

Quote:

Difficult, eh?

you demonstrate a continuous inability to process information .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Absolutely.

You could interpret it as obsolescent resistant design. Unlike the iPhone.

0 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

It took life billions of years and billions of reproductions and millions upon millions of microevolutions to evolve from a bacterium to a monkey or a pig to us. You expect to see it happen in your lifetime?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

It took life billions of years and billions of reproductions and millions upon millions of microevolutions to evolve from a bacterium to a monkey or a pig to us. You expect to see it happen in your lifetime?

Exactly! NO! That is my whole point! Then it is NOT scientitific, you CAN'T OBSERVE IT.

You only BELIEVE there is (macro)-evolution. but there is NOTHING that shows it to be true.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhm it's raining pigs!! But sooooooooooo slooowww you won't be able to notice it! Yeah, right!

Man o man, you are indoctrinated in this rubbish.

It really seems evil-lotionists can't think straight anymore, exactly what the documents show!!

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

So anything that didn't happen in your lifetime doesn't exist?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

So anything that didn't happen in your lifetime doesn't exist?

I didn't wrote that!!!

Gee, don't you really get it? are you that thick?!

Sorry to say, but again, there is NOTHING that shows there is (macro)-evolution. nothing. nothing. nothing. nothing. nothing. nothing. nothing. nothing. nothing. nothing.

1 Reply

The second coming has already happened. It didn't go well.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

The second coming has already happened. It didn't go well.

What does that has to do with anything, mate?

0 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

Do you feel better now that you've had your tantrum? EVidence: DNA mutability, changes in organisms in the fossil record over time, the simple fact you're not australopithecine (presumably not. I've never actually seen you so I can't be scientifically sure you're not, can I?)

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Do you feel better now that you've had your tantrum? EVidence: DNA mutability, changes in organisms over time in the fossil record, the simple fact that you are not australopithecine.

As I wrote before, DNA is prove against the religion of evil-lotion. And changes in the fossil record?? Come on!!!! The simple fact? man o man.

Again, there is NO (macro) evolution. If it is clear tho the mathematcal people (statistics) that it is an impossibility , then why holding on to this non-sense of macro evil-lotion? It is of nu use. there was none, there is none, and there never will be.

But it seems, some people can't get their head around it.

Really I am prepared to change my idea IF you can A) Give real good solid evidence for macro evil-lotion, and B) That you mathematically show it to be possible (Good luck! ha ha ha ha ha )

2 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

No one remembers your supposed DNA post. Everybody who knows about DNA thinks it shows rvolution, considering it evolves. If you think differently post evidence of a link to your alleged post. Since you think fossils are just Rockingham mud, you clearly have no idea of the wealth of information you get from them. It's not the math people with the stats, it's evo deniers . Math people know stats are only as good as your initial assumptions correspond to the real world. And the evo deniers Make atleast four really sketchy assumptions. They assume the probs are multiplication sand fixed. So the probs of two.events occurring is p1 x p2. Which works for five where 01 is fixed,and since each is.less tthsn 1 the product soon gets Sam ll. BUT we are dealing with living organisms which pass beneficial changes to their offspring who outcomes others which means 02 allegedly increase as more of the population has it, so.It will approach 1.so p1&02 steadily gets closer to 1&p2=p2. Similarly if p2 is beneficial it will approach so the alleged improbability is simply not applicable in an adaptive system.Mutations that are beneficial don't die out over time but stay till the next one comes along to build on. Further, reproductive populations number in. he trillions quadrillion quadrillion and much higher which makes the occurrence of mutations.much more likely than the specialist models. If you stats model is the usual finalist model it's just twaddle

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

he trillions quadrillion quadrillion and much higher which makes the occurrence of mutations.much more likely than the specialist models.

You don't even understand statistics at all and try to bend it tou your non-sense.
You don't seem to understand you have to multiply all those "trillions quadrillion quadrillion" which, if you do the math approaches extremely close to zero. (because all the probablities fall between 0 and 1.)
macro evil-lotion is non-sense, mathematical impossible and without a shred of evidence.

Are you really trying to hold on to a fairy tale?

4 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

It is obvious macroevolution “more than likely” has happened. It is also obvious that it required intelligent input to guide the process to overcome the probability problem.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

you are forgtting that , s Dr Haldane discovred. One "mutation" can effect many phylogenic changes and many "mutations" can effect one.
The point is that no genetic changes are sequential and only in one target individual organism. Thats where Haldane screwed up in what the ass backward Creationists /IDers called his "dilemma".

Thats why we can see macrovolution in plants within a single season or two.

Not to mention epigenetic effects (" inheritance of acquired characteristics bobs to life again, evidence seems to be leaning toward overwhelming)

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

Quote:

And changes in the fossil record?? Come on!!!! The simple fact? man o man.

Not much of an answer there Quahog.
An argument should be a collection of evidence to support a conclusion, not a batch of 4th grade playground ejaculations.

CMON MAN, if youre gonna argue in my court please make me believe that you know something. Youve never done anything but scream and stutter about how the fossil record shows something other than what it rally means.
I knew Quahog was a dim bulb but maybe youre his dumber brother.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know