112
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 05:51 am
@Helloandgoodbye,
well, there were several "Creationist' geoscientists" who were in the oil patches. Not one was successful. Many lost lots of money for investors because forams didnt get there due to a worldwide flood, and indicator species arent all over the place.

Evolution evidence is a "tool" not a belief system. You are really a bit slow in the uptake arent you?

I hope your kids understnd what it means for colleges being accredited in offering degrees in a particular skill. I dont predict lots of success if they too believe in Floods and Men and dinosaurs living together.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 07:33 am
farmerman
Here is something I found interesting. Thought the readers here might like it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-14/the-lizards-breaking-the-golden-rule-of-evolution-anu/10802342
South American lizards are breaking an evolutionary 'golden rule'
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 07:50 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

farmerman
Here is something I found interesting. Thought the readers here might like it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-14/the-lizards-breaking-the-golden-rule-of-evolution-anu/10802342
South American lizards are breaking an evolutionary 'golden rule'

Ha, I think you're a bit of a troublemaker Edgar, but let's go with it Smile ...

Ah ha! This means that the whole theory of Evolution must be FALSE, and therefor, God must have done it, and ipso facto, God must exist!

Either that, or it's just more data to be analyzed and merged into the existing theory if confirmed. But that's not very entertaining... Far better to declare Evolution Dead! Raise a flag and scream "God Lives" because, uh, reptiles sometimes lay eggs and sometimes don't.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 07:56 am
@edgarblythe,
Dollo's Law, hs been discussed herein and while its generally accepted, there are exceptions in the living AND the fossil record.
For example, "sabre toothness" in cats and specific marsupials has broken it, as well as beak shapes for certain bird families.

I wonder whether we arenet looking at actual evolution but its an example of genetic vvariability weathering varying selection. (Sorta like the peppered moths?)

Tell ya the truth, there are certain "LAws" that are not really enforced.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 08:04 am
@Helloandgoodbye,
Quote:
I look forward to my kids understanding biology, just not evolution doctrines like life can be created from non-life, or that ‘the present is the key to the past.’
(Relating to flesh eating and dating techniques for example) .




1 creation of life is not part of evolution. Its a totally different and separate field.

2"Uniformitarianism" is still a good indicator about how things in the past give us clues about how things can be expected to happen now. Catastrophism is only so "the first time it happens" then its just another uniformitarian example

3. Remaining ignorant of evolution or radio-isotopic dating based upon religious beliefs is just kinda stupid.
Ive read the Bible several times to help me understand how it has viewed things for which we have vast reams of counter data today.

Biblical archaeology remains fairly divorced from the Biblical "Calendar" that is based upon lives of succeeding patriarchs. Biblical Archaeology, when served with good science that dating techniques provide, generally agree.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 08:10 am
@Leadfoot,
actually, youre discussions re QM were to Brianjakub not H&G.
AT least I didnt recall you telling em both. You did flip out at BJ many pasges back but his conflating so many disciplines into a "Unified Brianjakub field theory" is something even you coudnt abide .
0 Replies
 
Helloandgoodbye
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 08:19 am
@edgarblythe,
That is interesting.
It is along the same lines as humanity creating machines with sensors to control the up-and-down motion of a sunroof depending on the climate. ‘Flipping back-and-forth’
I do enjoy reading how such scientific discoveries confirm that the creator created life with a wide range of biodiversity within each ‘kind.’
Helloandgoodbye
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 09:28 am
@farmerman,
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.

Helloandgoodbye
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 10:08 am
Hey Dan.....darn autocorrect hehe
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 12:10 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
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.

0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 12:59 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I think we've established that Leadfoot's enormous gob is in inverse proportion to his understanding.

Anyone who thinks spouting a load of nonsense that he's incapable of backing up is some sort of victory, isn't worth the time of 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."
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Mar, 2019 01:03 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
Helloandgoodbye wrote:

That is interesting.
It is along the same lines as humanity creating machines with sensors to control the up-and-down motion of a sunroof depending on the climate. ‘Flipping back-and-forth’
I do enjoy reading how such scientific discoveries confirm that the creator created life with a wide range of biodiversity within each ‘kind.’

You are more full of it than farmerman gives you credit for.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2019 08:03 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Seeing as how your reading comprehension, a most basic of qualifications, is lacking, I doubt that we can have a discussion on this topic. Let's try this again.

The assertion of yours to which I'm referring is the statement, "[* 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."

Do you understand? The question, then, isn't who did it, it was your IDer, after all. The questions are:

1. Where is this evidence for your intelligent actor?
2.Where is your theory of ID?
3.How probable, statistically speaking, is this theory of yours?

Are you following along?

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.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2019 08:21 am
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.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2019 11:21 am
@Leadfoot,
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
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2019 12:47 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Im not going to raise your above post to discussion status

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

Quote:
because its just pretty much wrong becuase I think youve been getting your stuff from a 2003 book.

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.

Quote:
FACT:

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

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? Smile

Quote:
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 "

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.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2019 02:41 pm
@Leadfoot,
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.


0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2019 02:47 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Now it's some random book you bring up. Well, no I didn't. I've never read or heard of it.


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)
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2019 10:50 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
2. Information comes only from intelligent sources.


This, of course, is bullshit. Human cognition apprehends "information," but that is not the source of what you are pleased to call information.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2019 09:55 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
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!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/23/2019 at 06:15:51