Why do people deny evolution?

New Information is information that introduces a new process into the system that causes the system to have a new purpose.

punctuated Equilibrium has always been evolutions "loss leader". Creationists have twisted the concept and actually posted the incorrect conclusion that , from the papaers THEYVE reviewed, PE leads onlyto extinction.

Theyve gotten it half right. Evolution is primarily long term adaptation to changing environments. If the environment changes quicklyenough that the heterozygocity within the species will adapt via evolution it dos so, often so that fossils are not seen from any intermediates. Thus the fossil record appears to be "Missing" intermediates. Thats really not what happens. Since the envionment changes rather quickly we dont see preserved intermeidates as much as we would xpect but they are there , often in some small layer that hasnt yet been studied.
Eldredge and Gould's own study fossil assemblage were within sediment layers , where they coined "PE" . These layers are composed of Devonian brachiopods (Spiriferids). The evolution of mucro spirifers re seen to have occurred so quickly s to not leave any intermediates. "This is not saltation they said" , but it sorta was. later it turned out that a grad student from SUNY found an intermediate fossil of the very group that Elredge and Gould posed as the poster fossil of their "theory". While PE explains a few unique fosil assmblages, the explnation MUST consider the speed at which the change occurs, So its just fast enough so that the inherent genetic variability can get "Selected for" in the nw environment.

NOW, where it gets unfair is that many of the Amateur fossil hunters do is believe the papers of guys like Dr Fazala Rana who has done as good a job as he could trying to misrepresent what tech papers say. Hes a practitioner of "quote mining" and conclusion miscasting.

You can look him up and then post some of his stuff and I can easily show you where his stuff gos off the rails.

YES, sadly, hes a "captive" Fella at the Discovery Institute. Why? because those guys get paid decent salaries to back up ID by any mean they can.However Fuz is a devout full frontal Creationist BUT, they also hope that most of their readers dont have the skills in the fields he posts , so readers will believe him without question and th DI still maintains plausibl denialbility. Im fairly sure that He is the one who coined the phrase that you used above'
" Evolution is based upon gradualism , except when its not"

Evolution is most often a product of the changing environment. The genetic variability that best fits a fast developed environment becomes the basis of "PE", and the environment merely "selected out those that didnt fit the occasion"

Sheesh, you sound like a drug dealer, or a snake in the garden, or Darth Vader... "Come to the Dark Side boy, try it, it's easier this way...".

To me it means creating new information is the easy part. Let me create some new info right here to illustrate : hgfhr3khvufxuhvjhgktkugxujogigciy v ihckh vihf. Vihff. Khckhfk. Hic k oh. That was easy enough to type. The hard part is to create useful information. Hence the pretty aggressive selection process.

But Jesus never pretented he was God. That´s a case of posthumous deification.

No, I don't! DNA is proof against evolution and there is NO fossil record.
There is some dirt in the mud, that's all. ONLY if one believe the evil-lotion shite you see things that aren't there at all, like ahum..fossils...

What's ''evil-lotion shite'' ?

I know what shite is but evil-lotion... do you mean K-Y Jelly?.

no idea.

I would think most Christian theologians and Christians in general would disagree with your statement did Jesus never said he was God.

The gospel of John says in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God. . . .And then the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Do you realize that if that evidence in that "small layer" doesn't show up your argument falls apart. And if you are incorrect it never will. You have a Lotta faith in winning the lottery of "the right information showing up in the genetic code in the right sequence at the right time."

Besides the evidence isn't in the fossil record. It's in trying to figure out how the information in the genetic code can change quickly and correctly Enough to cause the macro evolution necessary to meet the story laid out in the fossil record.

You don't need the fossils you just have to replicate to changes in DNA .

Nobody has done that except breeders of plants and animals through intelligent selection Of favorable traits. And I don't think they've ever produced speciation except maybe an I don't think they've ever produced speciation except maybe Using GMO.

But, that is some pretty strong evidence isn't it?

It sure looks like somebody knew how to produce a GMO s in a big way in the ancient past.

Yeah, right . . . what would that new purpose be? So the god botherers can get all giddy about the favorite delusion? The "system" has always had one and only one purpose, which is successful reproduction. Which is exactly why natural selection works.

Without intelligence there is no purpose.

And natural selection works because of death of the weak not, reproduction.

And evolution works because good information is introduced into the system to allow for adaptation.

And adaptation equals purpose.

Here is your typical routine--statements from authority based upon your delusional religious convictions. The only purpose of life is successful reproduction. No "information" is introduced into biological systems--that which succeeds in reproduction is retained, that which does not is lost. Natural selection works precisely because of reproduction. You, as an individual, may survive, and as survival is the only measure of fitness, that old survival of the fittest crapola does not apply to individuals. It only applies to species. Those species whose genome gives them a reproductive advantage within their environment will survive, and therefore prove to be the fittest. Conditions can change, too, and the process moves relentlessly on. That's why we don't see woolly mammoth or woolly rhinos walking around. This is all university level biology 101. Adaptation is entirely fortuitous, entirely accidental. There is no purpose involved.

You cannot divorce yourself from warping effect of your religious prejudice.

I assume you are talking to the evil-lotion's own choir?


You see evil-lotion IS a religion.
It always was, always is and will always be a religion.
And, just like in the religions (yep, they are all the same) , the Emperor has no clothes.
But so strong is the force of deep conviction (belief!), that people see things that aren't there.
It is just like the , alleged, moonlandings,
Show believers two minsicule dots on a picture and on the moon, and the believers see things that aren't there,
It is clever done, I admit.

Be blessed. lol

Jesus describes himself as the ‘son of man’ in the gospels. That’s a fact.

Just another non-existent fairy tale. There never was a man called "jesus' wjo behaved like described in the fairy tale book.
IT is ALL fake.

oh, does it? any proof for it? I know I know.

You appear to comment like you are in a position of authority.

Are you saying the Peacock wouldn't survive if it wasn't so beautiful.?

An elephant is better adapted than a Mammoth?

At one time there was one species of one type of living organisms on earth. A few million lyears later there were millions.

No there are less than there used to be. Do you think that trend is going to change and life will evolve to more species sagain .

Will we see something more beautiful than a peacock?
What's an elephant going to evolve to?

No, as I pointed out, I comment from the authority of Biology 101, university level. Have you not attended university? Have you attended, but rejected basic biological science teaching because it does not include your magic sky daddy?

I am saying that a peacock reproduces successfully because of its display. There are hundreds of species of bird which successfully reproduce because of the display made by the males. Elephants are descended from the mammoth--you are either too ignorant to have understood the distinction between a mammoth and a woolly mammoth, or you are willfully ignoring it. Even as recently as 20,000 years ago, the woolly mammoth, and the woolly rhino both flourished because they were adapted to the periglacial environment. When that disappeared, so did the woolly mammoth and the woolly rhino.

At one time, there was one species, and billions of years later, a second species arose which changed the environment so radically that most (but not all) of that first species died off. Go read up on the Great Oxygenation Event. Upon what basis do you allege that there are fewer species than there used to be? So long as elephants are adapted to their environment, there is no reason for them to evolve. Poachers will do for them--hundreds are killed every month.

You just wallow in ignorance.