Why do people deny evolution?

the bilaterall symmetry and radial symmetry "Body plan" actually happened in the PRE CAMBRIAN .

all those internal organs that didnt have shells needed some organization.
Mouth, digestive /circulatory, cloaca, eyes and eye spots.
evidence of chordate structure also a pre Cambrian feature.
Pikaia, the first real chordate, wasnt till the Burgess which was about 30 million years after the basal Cambrian

Now lets notice how he sneaks the ENTIRE cambrian period into his "xplosion time"

Body plans are based on about 3 different symmetries, However PHYLA appeared thoughout the paleozoic and Mesoozoic .

We've talked about those internal functions of cells before during abiogenesis discussions. I guess my question to you would be - Where did all those internal functions come from? Do you have a better response to that than 'What do you think was happening when the ocean was full of water and chemicals churning around for a half billion years? Of course water and chemicals can organize themselves into a cell!' . Really, there have been people on this thread that say and believe that. I believed that myself until I knew how a cell actually worked.

Where I don't think all those body plans suddenly came from is a bunch of cells sitting around deciding that bones, arms and legs sound like a pretty cool idea. Nor do I think an accidental mutation did it, no matter how many accidents happened or how carefully you selected them (unless the genetic data was already in place).

I get it, you and farmer are defending 'established science' based only on the fact that it is 'established'. I know the established narrative and I realize I'm asking you to look at it from a totally different one. That's how many of the breakthroughs in science happen. If you believe in the concept of science, that ought to be an easy thing to do. You don't have to believe a new way of looking at it to try it on. I do it with Evolution when new data (pro or con) turns up.

If for no other reason than the fun it, try the design theory on sometime and see how it fits.

Where do you get this ****. A search of pre Cambrian life turns up various versions of this:
https://www.reference.com/history/type-life-existed-during-precambrian-era-690f0fedda87b269

No, we're defending it because it fits the evidence. If it stops fitting the evidence they we will abandon it and seek the next best fit.

As to the evolution of cells (and life in general), I didn't think you ever objected to the fact of biological evolution. I thought you only objected to the transition from chemistry to life (abiogenesis). Are you now changing your tune and arguing that cells could not have evolved through natural processes once life had begun?

Try looking up data so you can really know what youre looking for. The Proterozoic had numbers of animals that(beginning in th post "Snowball Earth" times were "pulses of more advanced life that included the Tonian faunas, The Ediacaran, basal Cambrian ("explosion times to the non science minded") and the Fortunian faunas (Burgess shale lagerstatte).
Look up "one celled animals like" Dickinsonia, Mawsorites,Chamia,Cyclomedusana,Aspidellans Parvancorina,Spriggina,Tribrachidiua. These are all either Tonian or Ediacaran faunas and one plant and they sure are not single celled . Of course there were unicell animals, but these above are unique "breakouts into Metazoan bilateral and radiallly symmetric critters.
If one looks at a present map where all these are found, it appars that its based on several unique locations. Another way to look at em is to retrace where the continents were connected during the Columbian and Iapetan periods and we see that most ofthese fauna were possibly joined in a pre "Continental drift" shallow sea and estuaries.
Most of these fossil finds make the need for introductory geology texts moot.(research is going ahead faster than textbooks can even record). Strat students are taught to use and store information regarding index fosils of earth time. We find that certain resources are held in pre Cambrian sedimenary rocks and one of the best way to identify the resource location is to see the sequences of rock chemistry (Specifically oxides and oxyhydroxides) and sequences and first appearances of fossil plants and animals.
I dont expect you to appreciate this but believe me, its not a discussion that makes a point in a forum like this, ya gotta be a bit more up on the literature, this isnt a story from Nat Geographic. We require 24 CEU credits every two years to maintain our professional licenses to practice andseal maps and conclusive reports.

If you wanta stop sounding like an assertive bluff, go to a GSA regional conference and sit in on some paleo sessions about pre-Cambrian faunal assemblages, you can learn a lot.

You can deny all you wish, Im sure ol Quahog will side with you but Ive gotta be elsewhere this PM.
I do like the way you try to swivel back and forth when you first got caught trying to bullshit something about the "omission" pf the Cambrian (as if the Cambrian "explosion was all there was of the entire 50 + million year period of the C

Thats a 30 year old abstract by Preston Cloud , a colleague who defined much of the Ediacaran fauna. The present thinking (and strong evidence) linking the Post Vendian metazoans (extending to thecanadian work done earlier by Wolcott), is that a large evidence pool exists that shows a whole batch of more complex life grew in the late Grenvillian that grew, throve, and then underwent a mass extinction , with a few life forms left (those that didnt require the super oxigenation) and sported "tests" (shells" and were found i predominantly sideritic and other carbonate rocks (Ron Hazen has proposed that rocks, like life, chemically evolved from a few really simple chemical forms to more complex silicates and hydrated and metallogenic salts)

I don't know why people keep looking at the fossil record to figure out how the new information was entered into the DNA as biology evolved. The Fossil record, is a record of what the biology looked like after the information was entered. It does nothing to explain why the correct information was always added Exactly the way it was supposed to be exactly the way it was supposed to be when needed.

So then everybody starts talking about natural selection which is a very very complex system which is made up of complex systems ( Biology and enviromental) of information management feeding off of each other. And finally all of the Atoms in molecules in the chemistry of all of these systems are controlled by another system called quantum mechanics and relativity which are more complex systems of information management running inside the previously noted ones. And, as everybody knows all complex systems of information management have an author. Or, at least every system of information management we've witnessed coming into existence sinc or, at least every the system of information management we witnessed coming into existance as an Autre. The problem with these systems of information management as they are so old and passed that the author it's hard for us to determine. Especially since the author had to be outside the system and we lived inside the system.

Are we living in a Universe that was constructed in a similar way that we construct video games?

And quantum mechanics with its left and right Spanish to buy Ineri co and going to mechanics with its left and right Spin is the bianary code underneath it all.

Maybe the reason we can't figure this out evolution, Is the same reason you can't figure out how to win a video game by looking at the binary code and it's zeros and ones. The best way to figure out a video game is to try and imagine are you would construct a game if you were doing it, The best way to figure out a video game is to try and imagine how you would construct a game if you were doing it,. Or in other words mimic the author.

What do you think leadfoot farmer and Roseborne?

Mimicking the author is all we are attempting to do when we try to replicate abiogenesis anyway. Why is it so hard to admit that farmer and roseborne?

More of your 'confuse them with true but irrelevant facts and how ******* smart I am' BS.

I quit debating you on this subject because of this. I posted the current scientific consensus on pre Cambrian life, along with a source. If you want to argue with them, be my guest.

science looks at ALL chains of evidence. Yes the fossil record is a "record" of the past. It hs to substitute for species from times that genetics cannot be used. I had an argument once with this guy who was insisting that we know what we know about T Rex from DNA. Of course thats just hokum. DNA and osteocalcin degrade in relatively short times (geologically speaking)

Theres a series of newer ideas about "pulses" of evolution wherein horizontal selection can be accomplished via means described by Margulis or Woese.
Im reserving any forms of "bandwagonism" until Ive seen about 3 more conference proceedings about the subject and with much more evidence.

Seems amateurs get all accepting whatevers written yesterday than to look and evaluate several skeins of thinking and internal evidence.

Sometimes, the fossil and stratigraphic records are all weve got. Weve gotta deal with it rather than deliver an "either or" complaint. So far, the only time the fossil record has been completely wrong was in the case of the Hyrax.

Margulis was codeveloper of the Gaia hypothesis. This hypothesis is a way to introduce intelligence as an emergant property of an ecosystem to help provide an explanation for the implied purpose revealed by all the complexity we observe in nature that seems to be delivering a message. This is a kind of scientific new age pantheism which, is controversial and do to science's built in bias against ID is rarely discussed from that point of view. Which is unusual because, I thought science is not supposed to be unbiased. Which might be leading us away from the true solution .

So, i think we should be discussing the problem that Margulis' Gaia theory introduces which is, how can the intelligence that designed the system be part of the system it designed?

And

Why do you avoid ID when these scietists are introducing hypothesis that imlply it is a likely part of nature?

She was also the wife of Carl Sagan. (Both of them were kinda loony). Her GAIA (myth) is hers and hers alone. She was a damned good scientist with some wacky hobbies. If you want to hold that against her as som kind of ID "proof" you are welcome to your beliefs .I dont share them.

Her GAIA hypothesis isnt an "introduction to ID" its more about physico-hemical constraints imposed on a system such that there are but a few "pathways" for energy or chemical reactions to occur.

I would consider that a form of Darwinian intelligence developed through natural selection. I would consider this is an intelligence on a grander scale than that of the individual biological entity we are used to though. I would also consider it a logical conclusion many intelligence atheists would draw from the data.

I would hardly think that, if Carl Sagan or his wife were subjected to a psychological test, would be considered Looney. But, whenever the orthodoxy of mainstream science is challenged, "even buy respected scientist" psychological stability is always introduced by the orthodoxy. Unfortunately that is also known as bigotry and close mindedness.

And that is a characteristic you seem to share with them.

GAIA is not, "mainstream science"> recall that Newton was an alchemist and Wallace was a spiritualist who gave seances in his later life.
Dr Brian May a cosmologist is also lead guitar for the Rockband . QUEEN.

Ernst Mayr was a noted Bach Organist, and Darwin himself was a severe hypochondriac

I didn't say it was mainstream science. To become mainstream science would require paradigm shift. The orthodoxy of any group never fight fair. Just look at Copernicus. It is already taking mainstream science longer to come around then it took the Catholic Church back in Copernicus's day.

Could it be Carl Sagan looks loony because if intelligence is required (which isn't looney) and you try to work it in through atheism, it doesn't look very logical? At least not as logical as an intelligence that is outside the system (and with the ability to build it) rather than, a system that luckily fell into place and developed "and" luckily developed intelligence?

it is impossible to discuss with fm. He acts dishonest, is in denial, picks his 'evidence' selectivily and is very rude to people who dare to have a different opinion then his.Then he only throws ad hominems like a two year old with a tantrum.
Reading all this, can we conclude he is 'brainwashed' by the mainstream cult?

Yes, of course.

Its called "education" , and I sadly, have partaken.
Could I remain a Tabula Rossa like Quahog, Id prolly shoot myself.

"Loonyness" can be fun. However, rank hypotheses like Gaia need huge amounts of evidence to remove from the " looney bin" . So far, not many rel scientists seem to be biting especially since most scientists have day jobs involving their crafts. My only real problem with Sagans brand is how he proselytized against religions. He was not only a methodological naturalist but also one who often used his celebrity to denigrate those who didnt "believe" as he.
\Kinda like Dawkins, who just cant stop at his science.

I love listening to arguments far from my poles of reality, they often make one consider ones own reality. (You and Ledfoot at least stay within some bounds of your v my evidence)

SOmeone like ol Grumpy, who argues pretty-much in a fact free basis, aint worth anyones time, whether you buy his beliefs or not.

Hmmm, what you still don't seem to get is that there is no official education anywhere. Only Government Indoctrination Camps called 'schools", 'universities"and so on and so forth, hence the term "brainwashing" so people 'think' the way the governement wants.
I already wrote that you are in denial about this.
(In reality there is NO goverment of course, but that is a whole topic by itself, anyway, people assume there is a government, this let them into deep problems.)