Why do people deny evolution?

@izzythepush,

Quote:

There is a small error in...

Small? A? It was riddled with'em.

@InfraBlue,

The "Statistical analyss" on ID that Ive seen , never seems to include the overwhelming no of species that DONT evolve. They just go extinct. I wonder how the IDer has worked that out to bring downevolution theories

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

List them.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Heres nother one for LF. Most IDers will, like he does, often retreat to a second( equally obtuse) argument that, briefly , states that "SINCE WE DIDNT SEE IT HAPPEN, THEREFORE IT DIDNT HAPPEN" (Denial of forensic evidence isnt a really good defense to use in court where the decisions a require the most highly agreed upon verdict of the jury in criminal court). Its a paper about the discovery of the stepwise evolution of just one component of "becoming a whale"..

STEPWISE EVOLUTION OF BALEEN FROM TEETH IN MYSTICETE WHALES

Quote:

Abstract
The origin of baleen in mysticete whales represents a major transition in the phylogenetic history of Cetacea. This key specialization, a keratinous sieve that enables filter-feeding, permitted exploitation of a new ecological niche and heralded the evolution of modern baleen-bearing whales, the largest animals on Earth. To date, all formally described mysticete fossils conform to two types: toothed species from Oligocene-age rocks (∼24 to 34 million years old) and toothless species that presumably utilized baleen to feed (Recent to ∼30 million years old). Here, we show that several Oligocene toothed mysticetes have nutrient foramina and associated sulci on the lateral portions of their palates, homologous structures in extant mysticetes house vessels that nourish baleen. The simultaneous occurrence of teeth and nutrient foramina implies that both teeth and baleen were present in these early mysticetes. Phylogenetic analyses of a supermatrix that includes extinct taxa and new data for 11 nuclear genes consistently resolve relationships at the base of Mysticeti. The combined data set of 27,340 characters supports a stepwise transition from a toothed ancestor, to a mosaic intermediate with both teeth and baleen, to modern baleen whales that lack an adult dentition but retain developmental and genetic evidence of their ancestral toothed heritage. Comparative sequence data for ENAM (enamelin) and AMBN (ameloblastin) indicate that enamel-specific loci are present in Mysticeti but have degraded to pseudogenes in this group. The dramatic transformation in mysticete feeding anatomy documents an apparently rare, stepwise mode of evolution in which a composite phenotype bridged the gap between primitive and derived morphologies; a combination of fossil and molecular evidence provides a multifaceted record of this macroevolutionary pattern.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Too difficult? I'll make it easier, name just one, other than the one I've already pointed out.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

🤦🏼‍♂️

1 Reply

@Helloandgoodbye,

back atcha ya moron

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The "Statistical analyss" on ID that Ive seen , never seems to include the overwhelming no of species that DONT evolve. They just go extinct. I wonder how the IDer has worked that out to bring downevolution theories

Now I get it. You are just throwing meme's. I specifically answered that some time ago, but since you are just throwing the same atheist meme's around, this really isn't a debate, or even a discussion with you. You are on a mission of Jihad, not science.

Damn I'm slow to wake up some days.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Damn I'm slow to wake up some days.

You can say that again, despite the BBC article on the Stephen Hawking 50p being riddled with'em (errors,) after twenty hours you can't come up with a single one.

You never think things through, you just spout off your bullshit and then try to brazen it out. Where I come from, we call that being a gobshite.

It's not a good thing.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

From your paper:

Quote:

The simultaneous occurrence of teeth and nutrient foramina implies that both teeth and baleen were present in these early mysticetes.

Do I really have to point out how easily punctured your case for evolution vs ID is in this?

Or should I have simply said - 'Oh, how convienient those cow/pig/deer land mammals who decided to become whales fortuitously evolved with both baleen genes to eat plankton and teeth to eat the legs of obsessed sea captains. Because you never know what you might have to eat next.'

You know, it's just the same thing you say about the Fundies, if you want to believe something bad enough, you can find a way to believe anything.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Leadfoot wrote:
Damn I'm slow to wake up some days.

izzy sez:
You can say that again,

ZZzzzzzzz……, Hooked another one!

Too easy

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Do I really have to point out how easily punctured your case for evolution vs ID is in this

Please try to explain why you believe this and Ill be happy to show you where you're wrong.

You guys like to try cherry picking over understnding. Thats a lot why ID will never become a valid topic in anything but woo wooism

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

You are on a mission of Jihad, not science.

I dont believe this has EVER been a scientific debate with you. You are characteristically glued to a belief clearly without evidence. Your belief system is based on
1. Lifes too complex to have evolved without intelligence behind it (your ignorance of extinction of the vast number of species testifies to that)

OR

2. You werent there to see it therefore it dint happen without a designer

Ive already gone through that belief system as a comparative stage and found it bankrupt as anything but a religious based worldview (Which you humorously are in favor of using ).You seem to use more religious quotes to deny and try to claim that "Youre(meaning me, Farmerman) the one bringing up religion"). Until you ignore the Discovery Institute "faculty" You really must get over yourself and your belief that you are even assymptotic to anything scientific.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:’this really isn't a debate, or even a discussion with you. You are on a mission of Jihad, not science.’

Crazy how so many ppl believe/state evolutionism=science huh? trying to blend the two.

Well said. There is no ‘debate.’ Truth has no equal.
Just use ppl as leverage (acknowledging they have intrinsic value) to deepen your knowledge of the world around us.
One thing I have learned is that the creator allows so much misinformation in the world, and ppls minds, to ‘filter’ those who do and who don’t love/desire truth/him and his way of life.

I still prefer seeing/hearing atheists trying to explain morality over evolution. Gotta give ‘em an A for effort I guess.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
IB sez:
Very well thank you" isn't a credible argument.

Leadfoot wrote:
Try asking a credible question.

IB blathers:
Subterfuge. It figures.

Non sequitur; that all you got?

Jeez, it isn't that difficult. You make the assertion that "A new animal body plan calls for hundreds of new proteins. If you can't come up with an explanation for where that information came from, you don't have a viable theory. ID merely says that information only comes from one source - an intelligent actor".

Where is this evidence for your intelligent actor? Where is your theory of ID? And again, how probable, statistically speaking, is this theory of yours?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

That's your idea of hooking someone is it? Making wild claims you can't back up?

Typical gobshite, they keep trying to bluster it out even though it makes them look even more stupid.

0 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

I wonder what youd think ifn Leadfoot told you that he doesnt buy your Bible centered BS either. It seems we all went through that stage. Some of us grew out of it when we larned how to think and actually see evidence as opposed to "Biblical Bumperstickers with verse numbers on em"

Youre even worse than he. You actually believe that the Bible contains all the science you need know. (I dont think he buys this, his bullshit "borrows" Creationist ideas but he really does try to understand some science.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Youre even worse than he. You actually believe that the Bible contains all the science you need know. (I dont think he buys this, his bullshit "borrows" Creationist ideas but he really does try to understand some science.

And then he takes this understanding and defenestrates it by leaving it up to an IDer as a substitute for scientific explanations.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:’You actually believe that the Bible contains all the science you need know.’

Actually, I consider it more of a foundation to build upon.

Even with it aside, based on scientific observations and understanding I *did* (and still do) embrace the theory that the earth is several thousand years old, has experienced a massive flood, and was originally vegetarian, and more.

1 Reply

@Helloandgoodbye,

nobody is forbidding you to believe that way. Just do not try teaching that as science and that theres tangible evidence of same.

Id like you to read "The Summer for the Gods" by Edward Larson. Its a non-fiction account of the SCopes trial, in which the church led court did not allow any scientific evidence to be presented . Its a fascinating account of how the religious , when given complete charge in the US, treated science like it was witchcraft and pure blasphemy.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know