104
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Dec, 2018 07:38 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

That Roswell does not fall for your line of bullsh*t is not evidence that he fears anything.

Exactly right. And in point of fact, I did try out the faith-based viewpoint back when I was younger. I found it cloyingly oppressive and deeply unsatisfying, especially when compared to the elegance, clarity and grandeur of nature just being natural. I wish more of humanity could free their minds from religion and see the world clearly. It they could, a lot of humanity’s problems would go away.
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Dec, 2018 08:44 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:

Exactly right. And in point of fact, I did try out the faith-based viewpoint back when I was younger. I found it cloyingly oppressive and deeply unsatisfying, especially when compared to the elegance, clarity and grandeur of nature just being natural. I wish more of humanity could free their minds from religion and see the world clearly. It they could, a lot of humanity’s problems would go away.


you have to remove the religion called 'science' (scientism) as well!
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Dec, 2018 12:41 pm
@OldGrumpy,
OldGrumpy wrote:

you have to remove the religion called 'science' (scientism) as well!

Removing any culture is a bad idea. All culture contains information that is useful for understanding history.

The challenge is to interact with cultural information in ways that are fruitful and beneficial.
OldGrumpy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Dec, 2018 02:35 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Removing any culture is a bad idea. All culture contains information that is useful for understanding history.

The challenge is to interact with cultural information in ways that are fruitful and beneficial.


culture? scientism isn't a culture at all, it is a belief system and yes, we have to get rid of it as soon as possible. Why/ Because it is very destructive,
LIES always are destructive, like, to stay on topic, evil-lotion.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Dec, 2018 04:08 pm
@OldGrumpy,
OldGrumpy wrote:

Quote:
Removing any culture is a bad idea. All culture contains information that is useful for understanding history.

The challenge is to interact with cultural information in ways that are fruitful and beneficial.


culture? scientism isn't a culture at all, it is a belief system and yes, we have to get rid of it as soon as possible. Why/ Because it is very destructive,
LIES always are destructive, like, to stay on topic, evil-lotion.

Everything that's not nature is culture. And how would you think it is possible to get rid of culture? Did Nazi book-burnings get rid of the information they were symbolically ridiculing by burning its material containers?

Do you think that the many lost languages and cultures of human history are necessarily better off lost? Wouldn't it be better if we could examine those texts, languages, cultural artifacts, etc. to understand them, even if they were complete madness? After all, there's nothing that's going to inherently suck you in if you study Mein Kampf or some other terrible cultural ideas. You just get a better handle on why certain atrocities were committed and then maybe that helps you recognize and avert similar travesties happening in the future.

Have you never heard the saying that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Dec, 2018 05:05 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
I did try out the faith-based viewpoint back when I was younger. I found it cloyingly oppressive and deeply unsatisfying

Yeah, but in spite of you & farmer insisting on dragging the discussion into religion, a faith-based viewpoint is not what I was suggesting that you try. (a quote would be helpful if you disagree)

But I did find all the reactions helpful and I think that fear is a factor that I was missing. The cloyingly oppressive factor of simplistic religions is pretty well known.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Dec, 2018 05:55 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
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?


And I am using a basic understanding of information theory to describe bioinformatics.

Wiki :information theory
Quote:
The field is at the intersection of mathematics, statistics, computer science, physics, neurobiology, information engineering, and electrical engineering. The theory has also found applications in other areas, including statistical inference, natural language processing, cryptography, neurobiology,[1] human vision,[2] the evolution[3] and function[4] of molecular codes (bioinformatics), model selection in statistics,[5] thermal physics,[6] quantum computing, linguistics, plagiarism detection,[7] pattern recognition, and anomaly detection.[8] Important sub-fields of information theory include source coding, channel coding, algorithmic complexity theory, algorithmic information theory, information-theoretic security, and measures of information.


wiki: bioinformatics
Quote:
Computational evolutionary biology
Further information: Computational phylogenetics
Evolutionary biology is the study of the origin and descent of species, as well as their change over time. Informatics has assisted evolutionary biologists by enabling researchers to:

trace the evolution of a large number of organisms by measuring changes in their DNA, rather than through physical taxonomy or physiological observations alone,
more recently[when?], compare entire genomes, which permits the study of more complex evolutionary events, such as gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, and the prediction of factors important in bacterial speciation,
build complex computational population genetics models to predict the outcome of the system over time[20]
track and share information on an increasingly large number of species and organisms
Future work endeavours to reconstruct the now more complex tree of life.

The area of research within computer science that uses genetic algorithms is sometimes confused with computational evolutionary biology, but the two areas are not necessarily related.


When a change in the reproduction of an organism is made that allows that organism do do another more complex process that changes the animals pupose (like live in a new environment or perform a new act like sight) how the new information is introduced in the correct sequence to produce that complex change in information needs to be explained and replicated.

That has not happened yet by by any theory of biological evolution through natural selection. I don't think Punctuated Equilibrium has.

Can you provide an example? Bioinformatics has not been shown to be capable of doing that from random inputs of new information yet.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Dec, 2018 06:02 pm
@Laurex,
Quote:
If a God can't protect you, a God obedient, good, perfect person from natural harm, then what is the point of following a so-called God if he don't protect you if he is discriminate/favouritism over his followers?


He can protect you but, life is a process that ends with that highly desired outcome if you choose it. It will happen after everyone is afforded the opportunity to go through the process and choose whether they want to join in the resurrection of the dead and go to heaven.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2018 10:23 am
There is hope! Mankind to be delivered from the horrors of Evolution Denial by Justin Bieber!

Quote:
To Bolster Belief in Evolution, Study Recommends Celebrity Endorsements
A new paper in the journal Evolutionary Psychology laments:

“Despite the consensus among scientists that humans have evolved over time, human evolution still remains a contentious topic among much of the general public.”

The study, however, proposes a new tool for evolution evangelists to consider: celebrity endorsements.
Bieber and the Big Bang:

The study, “Celebrity Opinion Influences Public Acceptance of Human Evolution,” cites a number of pop and other stars, for example heartthrob Justin Bieber who has shared with fans his concerns about the cosmological science underlying the Big Bang. Celebrities taking political positions, not always in a thoughtful manner, is nothing new. It’s intriguing to see that that they are branching out into other fields.

At any rate, this peer-reviewed research finds that when celebrities (whether male or female) endorsed evolution, it had an influence on whether undergraduates accepted evolution:

The present research examined the influence of celebrity opinion upon individuals’ acceptance of the theory of evolution. Priming stimuli were developed purveying pro-evolution, anti-evolution, or neutral opinion (Study 1). When paired with a male celebrity or expert source (Study 2), the male celebrity, but not the male expert, influenced undergraduates’ acceptance of evolution.

The influence of the male celebrity on acceptance of evolution was replicated in a community sample (Study 3). When paired with a female celebrity source, undergraduates’ acceptance of evolution was similarly influenced. Together, these findings extend our understanding of the reach of credible celebrity endorsers beyond consumer behavior to core individual beliefs, such as those surrounding the acceptance of human evolution.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/11/to-bolster-belief-in-evolution-study-recommends-celebrity-endorsements/
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Dec, 2018 11:26 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
There is hope! Mankind to be delivered from the horrors of Evolution Denial by Justin Bieber!
Oh Noooooooooooooooo...
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2018 09:36 am
@rosborne979,
I juwt finished "Lamark's Revenge" by Peter Ward. (Hes been a lwader in the new realms of paleontology closer to my area of expertise. Hes not a leader in fossil records but is opening eyes to students about "Paleobiomarkers" The fossil chemistry of evolution, lifes path through time, and relict chemistry.
Unlike Quammen' "Tree of LIfe" (which to me was a waste of my time because it spent so little time on the science rather than the scientists. )
I urge the ID crowd especially to read both books but start with Ward, its immensely more satisfying in its discussion.
What Ward does also , is dismiss many of the "undeniably related " species that had to develop into , say mammals and birds.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2018 09:51 am
@farmerman,
Naw, scientific research has shown that celebrity endorsements will be far more effective in promoting Evolution than any book.
If people read too many of them, they start to see where it falls apart.

Leave it to Bieber.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2018 10:26 am
@Leadfoot,
Then why was that segment of " Bieber endorsement" posted via the Discovery Institute??
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2018 08:00 am
@farmerman,
Because they wanted to. You got a problem with free press?
0 Replies
 
MyFloridaGreen
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2018 08:02 pm
@JimmyJ,
because it is not practically proved it is just a theory.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2018 08:53 pm
@MyFloridaGreen,
MyFloridaGreen wrote:

because it is not practically proved it is just a theory.

I suggest you google the difference between the street use of "theory" and how science uses it. Big difference.
OldGrumpy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2018 11:45 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
I suggest you google the difference between the street use of "theory" and how science uses it. Big difference.


yeah, but it is still a Theory and NEVER EVER a FACT as stated by a lot of zombies here.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2018 04:05 am
@OldGrumpy,
believe Edgar. The other guy is a classical denialist who tries to make people believe he knows of what he speaks, and hes clueless.
Totally without a clue.


izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2018 04:59 am
@farmerman,
If only he was clueless, then he might actually want to find out the truth. There's a certainty about his delusions, it reminds me of talking to someone with dementia. There's no doubt with them, they're certain about their version of reality.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2018 07:38 am
@brianjakub,
Living in a new environment is not evidence of an increase in complexity. Mammoth always had hair. Some mammoth had longer and heavier hair. A change in the environment, which we call the ice age, created an opportunity for the mammoth to exploit the vast grasslands of the periglacial regions, where no forest could survive (under those conditions). The mutation was always there--no change in reproduction and no complex processes were necessary for those mammoth to exploit the opportunity.

Your "new information" bullshit is just that--bullshit. When the environment changed, those mammoth with the long guard hairs and the undercoat were able to exploit it. When it changed again, those mammoth, which had continued to evolve more long guard hairs and more undercoat, were doomed. There were no more complex processes, there was no "new information."

All you do is demonstrate that you do not understand natural selection. You're so addicted to your magic sky daddy superstition, that you shudder at the very thought of random events. What furthers reproductive success is retained, what hinders reproductive success dooms a species. There is no more striking example of this than the woolly mammoth--both the successful exploitation of environment, and the subsequent extinction when that environment changed.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/12/2018 at 03:19:48