Why do people deny evolution?

quote’Uniformitarianism" is still a good indicator’

No sir.
Observing flesh eating and disease As a present day observation, hey Dan applying that to the past as a good indicator that it has always been that way is terrible thinking.

Just As observing tree rings forming annually, and then saying to yourself that is a good indicator that all tree rings we did not observe forming in the past are annual tree rings.
Just as a person may measure radioactive decay at a present day rate, (claiming that is a good indicator of the past decay rates as well)

** Especially when there is evidence to the contrary.

This type of thinking leads to drastically different conclusions.
A good scientific mind should acknowledge that present day observations we make are not the key to the past.
This is a core problem of evolutionist thinking.(your thinking)

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.
Leading people to falsely conclude what was actually going on in the ancient past.

This is why based on scientific observations and evidence, I embrace no Theory that the earth is much younger and did not contain flesh eating originally.

Hey Dan.....darn autocorrect hehe

I axtually believe that you think that science hasnt already though about and discussed several of the above. We have a "Uniformitarianism always needs a first time event"
--during several of AGI conferences.

Id love to hear you try to explain your above beliefs without the evidence that you really should try to gather. Your" feelings" about the age of the earth really dont count for a bucket of warm spit. As do all of your other "feelings" ..SCIENCE is a tough mothah, not much room for your "feelings" or your story book. We like good strong repeatable evidence. Thats the only reason why your beliefs arent given any time in science classes (except as examples of the way many folks "Used to think").
Your belief are pretty much just bogus, and are mostly fraudulent, mixed in with actual lies. No thanks, Im in the real world


Ill continue thinking that youre somewhat of a Fundamentalist Bible student. Thats it. Nothing you say has any scientific value to me. g'day.

He takes it rather personally, what with all of the invective he slings. He's got faith and little else in regard to his "science."

You are more full of it than farmerman gives you credit for.

Aside from the insults, your questions are ones that I have addressed a number of times here. The first one is just simple logic spelled out in the very same statement of mine that you quoted above.

All biological life contains vast amounts of encoded information. In all of our experience, information comes from only one thing - an intelligent source. That is the same premise as our scientists are using in the SETI program. This is the whole basis of the theory.

If you wish to argue with it, fine. which part do you disagree with?

1. Biological life contains a lot of information.

2. Information comes only from intelligent sources.

There is no Who here to agree or disagree on.

The area of research that becomes the black hole that destroys Neo Evolution may be in ORFans, the so called orphan genes that don't fit Darwin's fanciful tree of life.

A significant 10 to 15% of genes in any given specie don't fit the 'tree' and aren't in the 'Gene Bank' where they are being cataloged. This was true in bacteria but now that we have a significant number of modern animals sequenced as well, the same is true of them as well. And, we are talking about function DNA that codes for protein here, not 'junk DNA'.

If you understand that Neo Darwin Evolution rests solely on the premise of 100% Common Descent, this is getting to be a big problem. It calls for far too much accidental DNA generation out of nowhere, that even HGT or ET sources (the all-natural kind) can't plausibly explain.

Im not going to raise your above post to discussion status because its just pretty much wrong becuase I think youve been getting your stuff from a 2003 book.

FACT:


As weve sequenced more and more genes since the early 2000's, the number of ORFans have precipitiously plummeted.

The book you were using (I think) was Explore Evolution" which had a wisely iserted cop-out which said, and I paraphrase

"When computational methods improve and genetic data bases increase, PERHAPS SOME of the ORFand will be shown to have "relatives "


Sorta like Darwin in chapter 6 of the "Origin..." stated that as we get more and deeper geological data , the familial connections of species will be better understood.



Science has been waay ahead of ya LF, sorry

And yet you do. It seems all your arguments are self refuting.


Previously you attributed all my arguments to religious sources. Now it's some random book you bring up. Well, no I didn't. I've never read or heard of it.


There's your problem, you can't keep your facts straight. It true that the PERCENTAGE of ORFans goes down as we sequence more species, but the total NUMBER of ORFans keeps going up. And if you will look at what I actually said, I was pointing out that the percentages bottom out around 10 - 15%, depending on the specie. In other words, there are species with genes that we don't see a common ancestor for.

For Neo Evolution to be true, we would expect the figure to be 0%.

ID prediction: The number or percentage of ORFans will never fall to zero.
Didn't you claim that ID had no ability to predict?


As I said, I haven't read it but I would expect that to be true. If there was a common intelligent designer, it is logical that it would use common protein designs for the same function in many different species (mitochondria for example) and only using new ones for specie specific functions.

So of course there would be many 'ORFans' found on the very first animal specie to be sequenced and the percentage would fall as more were sequenced.

The salient FACT, is that the ORFan percentage is hanging around 10 - 15%, even as more are sequenced, and that my good man is your problem.

In spite of your putative dismissal of the argument, I think it has been useful.

your argument is totally Teve Meyer (yes , Discovery Inst).. In 2005 there was a book published that said the total % ORFans was abou 62%. Today its down to about 6% (NCSE and NIH data). We keep sequencing more genomes of all kinds of phyla.(By your statement we shoulda STOPPED?). OF course we will find more ORFans as the numbers grow , but these grow smaller in actual % as our larger data bases take numerical precedence .

You dug your own hole on this one. Im just here to help you quit digging.
Where I get a huge laugh is your assertion that youre NOT of a religious POV .Yet ALL your arguments to date , BEGIN with a statement as to how this or that finding youve just now read about, Dismantles Darwin or enhances ID.
an these arguments have been SPOT ON with those of Discovery Institute's statements almost to the word.

Another thing--no conclusions because they still arent done with mega sequencing of genomes but MOST ORFans do have genetic precursors. (nother kinda bogus argument you copied from Steven.

He never considered a condition of speciation that is a fact

"Much genetic "rearrang,ment and insertion of "new genetic information" Occurs AFTER two species have split from a LCA. Look at great apes. The last Common ancestor was that of chimps(bonobos) aand Hominims. We can read this new information added to human chromosome 1 and Bonobo on chromosome 1 and 2. Much of the shared information gets stashed as pseudogenes in human genomes and several new genes got produced and inserted (CMTiA,ROCK1,etc). SMeyers wants to have it many ways without fully explaining to his audience (ANyway, hes just a Philosopher of Science, those guys are always making believe they know what the hell thyere talking about)

The bogus argument you present (basically Myers same stuff from 2005.
1Common descent assumes a vey high % of current genetic info originated with common ancestors.
There nothing he says that quashes that .
Relatives of 62 % of ORFans have been found by analyses of genomes based on post 2005 equipment, techniques and data bases.(He should never make predictions while data is being collected and analyzed. It often takes decades to get a complete story of a phenomenon.

Post s[pecies separation presents much new gene information. These are really irrelevant to evolution being an ID

.
I dug out a statement from Exporing EVolution on P61 and I repeat it significance.
"More sensitive computational methods may succeed in assigning SOME ORFans to known genotypic families"
NOW THAT;s a big BINGO. I really believe thats what is happening an you just want to even deny how science continues its work.

Science always try to make sure that its conclusions come AFTER the work is all done and the math checks, not the other way around.

I think your fibbing . Youve posted some mirror statements of Meyers 2005 book (its in its 2nd edition dated 2013). maybe the Wiki site you used was posting Meyers via some other copy artist.


I have both a 2005 AND a 2013 version (I love to read what 2nd editions do to still sound relevant and still be able to say( OOPS I KINDA FUCKED UP ON ED 1)

This, of course, is bullshit. Human cognition apprehends "information," but that is not the source of what you are pleased to call information.

Oh baby, when you get it right, you really hit it out of the park!

Nothing to be said in that case

I saw you pulled your earlier "wish to me". Or did the Mods pull it?

.

There's a really well written book by thie lawyer W.R Bird. Its called the Origin of Speies Revisited. Its a book that he does a quite readable full analyses of the concepts of everything from "Sudden Appearance" (a basic belief of the neo Creationism school{Creationists and IDers}.
Ill reserve any personal opinion so if anyone is interested in reading it, I wont be providing any "lead-in opinions or conclusions".

His arguments are quite well crafted especially those involving our Constitutions 1st Amendment and how the USSC has ruled on the "Establishment Clause" through its history as well as "sudden appearance" and "Falsifiability".

As a resource I think its wonderful and its totally an apology for neo-Creationism.

Please, if you do, read it with an open mind, not one burdened with your own woorldview.

Haven't read that one either but I'm trying to wrap my head around how these two things about the book could be related. What kind of neo-Creationist (I'm thinking of the Fundamentalist type here) would even think about the USSC in regards to their Creationist beliefs?

I can't explain it. IDK

This is an assumption of yours.

By theory of ID I'm referring to how this IDer came up with the hundreds of new proteins for an new animal body plan. You continually pussyfoot around the question along with the question of the statistical probability of your IDer being behind the hundreds of new proteins for a new animal body plan.

If you can't explain then the mods must have deleted it. That means someone reported your post, and the mods deleted it because it was outside the T&Cs.

Take it from someone who knows, if you get too many of them you'll be suspended. Ease off a bit.