Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

What Dr Haldane discovered is that DNA is part of a system that either has the ability to ‘predict’ along with ‘choosing’ because as you pointed out multiple choices are being stored for later use and then multiple choices are collectively made at the right time. That would suggest either:

1. The system was designed to do these complex things.
2. Something with the ability to input intelligent decisions into the system was helping it along.
3. Maybe 1 and 2 are both true.
4. Or the multiple examples of macroevolution we witness are a sequence of events that miraculously happened against all odds.. (and farmerman appears to believe in miracles)

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

you should read haldanes expansions and see where the math took him.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Ok thanks

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

then see why the Creationist arguments fell apart based upon Ramines nalysis of the genetic fundamentals.
Hint: it has a lot to do with th size of the population under analysis .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Haldenes analysis seems to lead to extinction or requires too many generations so, too much time.

And he is explaining what happens not why. He admits he can’t explain how the DNA is making the multiple correct changes except beyond unsubstantiated speculation.

The answer is, “It is succeeding because it was designed to succeed.”

Tell me more about Ramine

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

It is obvious macroevolution “more than likely” has happened

duh? That is no argument, it is a silly bit of circular reasoning in which you from the start assumed it happened.

But well, ok then, if that is so, show me some errrr evidence, please.

0 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

Yeah. Ghought so. Your "stats" are the same lame stuff as all the other deniers, like gungasnake cuts and pastes repeatedly. Probabilities are onlymitiplicative if they don't change. The problem is, with biological organismas, they CHANGE.. If you toss a die (that's one of a pair of dice), the .probability of any one number coming up is 1/6, if and only if the die is balanced and wunweighted. If every time the die comes up with a 6, for example, you put a little bit of weight on the opposite side, and increase that weight every time you get a 6, pretty soon all you will get is 6s.They rarely make that caveat clear in stat 101, aned you deniers ignokre it. Evolution is somewhat analogous to that. Omce a beneficial change in the genome happens and is passed on to the descendants who are more successgul than others and out reproduce them, it's probability rises and increases further in each generatkon, so multiplying the probabilities is no longer relevant because they increase with every generation (which can be as little as 20 minutes with single cenll organismas). And that happens with every successful change in the genome. So p1p2p3p4p5...pn allbeneficial mutations, approaches 1, not zero. Yes, some mutations and changes are harmful, those don't get reinforced. Most are neutral, thay seem to have no apparent affect on the carrier organism. Some are beneficial. Those are the ones that get reinforced and drive evolution. You're a victim of lousy statistics, grump.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

urther, if you've got a septillion organisms reproducing, you're going to get a LOT more mutations Yes, a lot witill be harmful and die out eventually, but more will be neutral, and also a lot will convey a reproductive advantage and will spread thru the population.and changes in the genome than you'll get with the much smaller popultioions that deniers usually consider.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Yeah. Ghought so. Your "stats" are the same lame stuff as all the other deniers, like gungasnake cuts and pastes repeatedly. Probabilities are onlymitiplicative if they don't change. The problem is, with biological organismas, they CHANGE.. If you toss a die (that's one of a pair of dice), the .probability of any one number coming up is 1/6, if and only if the die is balanced and wunweighted. If every time the die comes up with a 6, for example, you put a little bit of weight on the opposite side, and increase that weight every time you get a 6, pretty soon all you will get is 6s.They rarely make that caveat clear in stat 101, aned you deniers ignokre it. Evolution is somewhat analogous to that. Omce a beneficial change in the genome happens and is passed on to the descendants who are more successgul than others and out reproduce them, it's probability rises and increases further in each generatkon, so multiplying the probabilities is no longer relevant because they increase with every generation (which can be as little as 20 minutes with single cenll organismas). And that happens with every successful change in the genome. So p1p2p3p4p5...pn allbeneficial mutations, approaches 1, not zero. Yes, some mutations and changes are harmful, those don't get reinforced. Most are neutral, thay seem to have no apparent affect on the carrier organism. Some are beneficial. Those are the ones that get reinforced and drive evolution. You're a victim of lousy statistics, grump.

Nope, the one who doesn't get the statistics is you. You see, make the highest probablity for an 'event' the highest you can get, like "0.9999999999..."
It is still between 0 and 1. And because you have to multiply numbers between o and 1, the more you have (like billions of years, which is nonsense), the LOWER the change,
BUT I do understand you want to talk you way out of this, because you are defending your belief system. Certainly no truth or something.

There was NO macro-evolution, there IS no macro-evolution and there will never BE any macro-evil-lotion,
You seem I once was fooled and believed all this crap and yunk.
I am only asking you to look closer and free your mind, of this extremely stupid and ugly and very wrong theory.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

Traits clearly do change and clearly do get passed down in the genome. Dogs produce dogs produce dogs. That's so clkose to 2 there is no signicant differentce, no matter how many generations you consider. so roa all practical purposes, it's a macroevolution that is fixed. BUT there is genetic variation and change in the genome that can over time produce something new and different. I ask you to free your mind yourself. Look at the abundant evidence. Things were not always as they are now. Most of the organisms that have evolved have in fact died out. New onves are being born. The common sense view is that change always happens. That's evolution.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

swow, that's really cool. I have no idea how that post came out in italics, or how I might have caused it to evolve into italics, but I like it.

evolution at work.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Traits clearly do change and clearly do get passed down in the genome. Dogs produce dogs produce dogs. That's so clkose to 2 there is no signicant differentce, no matter how many generations you consider. so roa all practical purposes, it's a macroevolution that is fixed. BUT there is genetic variation and change in the genome that can over time produce something new and different. I ask you to free your mind yourself. Look at the abundant evidence. Things were not always as they are now. Most of the organisms that have evolved have in fact died out. New onves are being born. The common sense view is that change always happens. That's evolution.

Dogs produse dogs! YES! But again, that is NOT, macro-evolution.
No other species were created, that is an I M P O S S I B I L I T Y,

I just doesn't happen.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

Quote:

No other species were created, that is an I M P O S S I B I L I T Y,

No it is not. Happens repeatedly.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

No it is not. Happens repeatedly.

Then, please, please, please SHOW it, give us proof or evidence.

There is NONE,

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

swow, that's really cool. I have no idea how that post came out in italics, or how I might have caused it to evolve into italics, but I like it.

evolution at work.

Made it harder to read, a negative mutation, that's what evolution would be expected to produce, you know stuff like cancer and birth defects.

You are also ignoring the complexity barrier. Neo Evolutionists are always claiming that it has been debunked but that is just an assertion. Last I heard, we have never witnessed first hand a mutation requiring more than a single bit mutation that resulted in a beneficial change (ability to process a different sugar). Even that one was a case where an inhibiting function was destroyed, thus enabling the new 'ability'.

That seems like a flimsy thing to base Neo Evolution on.

The latest Nobel prize winner in this field won it by using intelligent design to get past the complexity barrier that 'all natural' evolution can't get past. Take note that it is a barrier that Neo Evolutionists say doesn't exist, so why the prize?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

The latest Nobel prize winner in this field won it by using intelligent design to get past the complexity barrier that 'all natural' evolution can't get past. Take note that it is a barrier that Neo Evolutionists say doesn't exist, so why the prize?

Bullshit. You're just making **** up. Smith, Arnold and Winter won the prize for their work in directed evolution. That means that they tinkered with existing cells to make them more effective bacteriophages. It was not inspired by IDiotics, nor does it have any implications for IDiocy. That's equivalent to saying that as Gregor Mendel believed in god and Jeebus, that is evidence for IDiocy. Don't piss down our collective leg and tell us it's raining.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Half of the prize goes to Arnold, from the California Institute of Technology, for her work on directing the evolution of enzymes – proteins that speed up chemical reactions. In a nutshell, Arnold introduced random genetic mutations into enzymes, and then looked to see what effect the mutations had. She then selected the cases where a particular mutation proved useful – for example allowing the enzyme to work in an extreme environment, such as in a solvent, in which it would otherwise not work . The process could then be repeated, with further genetic mutations introduced into these selected enzymes.(often thats how nat selection works)
Wilson's " Phage displays" made the technique a marketable tool from fuel production to specialized meds.

Im not sure where leadfoot is getting this ID connection. When we learn a trick and borrow it from nature wheres the connection ?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

But where did nature learn that trick?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Nature doesn't 'learn'. **** happens and it works and reproduces or it doesn't work and it stops. Nature doesn't even 'try' things (unless you get needlessly anthropomorphic).

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Yes, and Smith used the technique to bond bacteriophage proteins to the outsides of cells. To my mind, it's a measure of the desperation of the IDiot crowd that they take something they obviously do not understand, and try to make out that it's out of their "playbook."

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know