Why do people deny evolution?

Ok, so tell me one thing you know. Not something somebody told you, not something you read somewhere, not something you are commanded to believe. You have to tell me a fact, something you can point to and say "That is evolution."

What an incredibly wise question to ask someone with a lifespan that doesn't encompass visible evolution. Please ignore evidence painstakingly gathered over generations. It will help if you quote lines from UFO documentaries.

No, you are trying to change the subject. Evidence only applies AFTER you have established that you have a subject to support. Tell me one fact that establishes an actual subject.

The problem is that nobody has ever seen evolution, and science is based on observations. Without an observation, evolution is fiction.

Youre wrong again Jules.

If observing something was the only way to prove something then we wouldn’t be able to prove that a redwood tree grew from a seed.

heres an example of rapid evolution of fish in respone to damming of the Connecticut River during colonial times.
HERES AN ARTICLE ABOUT FISH EVOLUTION AS AN ADAPTIVE MECHANISM

Interesting article farmerman. Thanks

Just how one interprets the evidently rapid evolution of these fish appears to depend a lot on one's point of view.
=> for me it suggests the beneficial and happy adaptation of a species to a change in its environment, and some of the knock- on changes that result for other elements of the environment.
=> For the author it appears to indicate the need for further study in his chosen field, and perhaps yet another grant.

Evolution is indeed occurring either way.

Hope you are doing well !

the best research always ends with discovering even more questions

I awoke one morning last week from a troubled dream and lay in bed, profoundly depressed. As I contemplated our situation, it occurred to me that we not only may we be at end of the Holocene, but that we may take the other mammals with us. Even the seas may not protect mammals. Perhaps you will recall the Orca female who pushed her sea calf around with the pod for weeks before she finally abandoned the calf. Her pod is experiencing increased spontaneous abortions, and the death of newborns. This year the pelagic zoologists think they have identified a cause. The salmon are acting to water temperatures, and the salmon runs are taking place much earlier than in the past. The Orcas are arriving off the coast after the salmon run has gone upriver, and they believe the pod is now chronically malnourished.

Things aren't any better for the whales necessarily. Many of those are now thought to be undernourished. The whales who are filter feeders are getting their balleen clogged with microplastics. Those who beach and die are found to have intestinal linings coated with microplastics, too. They feed almost constantly, and they 're, nevertheless, starving.

You might well imagine how depressed I was for most of the day. Once again, we might only end this epoch, we may take the mammals with us.

Cherry sort, ain't I.

The scientific forecast is for about 2.2 deg, C warming by about 2040. That's not very different from the prevailing temperatures in the Medieval warm period. Neither mammals nor humans died out then.. Cheer up !

I hear you boss. And this morning's podcast was Sylvia Earle's 2009 Ted Talk about ocean health.
https://www.ted.com/talks/sylvia_earle_s_ted_prize_wish_to_protect_our_oceans?language=en

They're doing a follow up interview with her, I'm not sure I'm up for it.

That is correct. And evolution can never be proved because nobody has seen any such thing.

such things as evolution, continental drift, archeology, forensic science are all examples where the "proof" is based upon the connecting evidence.

Proof is for geometry.

It’s already been proven. Over a century ago. Done deal. Game over. The fat lady sang, left the stage, retired and died of old age.

We've already caused the extinction of hundreds of mammal species. And it started right at the beginning of the holocene.

Mammals as a group will survive climate change. Perhaps not the biggest ones, eg whales or elephants, but the small critters will be by and large okay, eg rodents.

I think even the human race have solid chances of surviving climate change. Reduced to 10 or 20% of its current numbers maybe.

I've never seen gravity.

But the proof supporting the theory which describes the process of macro evolution was obtained using inductive reasoning instead of deductive reasoning. The process of macro evolution has never been deductively determined by direct observation. The process of macro evolution has only been postulated and imagined as a possibility by the use of inductive reasoning. For inductive reasoning to be valid all alternative possibilities must be looked at as equally possible and their validity determined using the scientific process. Macro evolution has not been determined possible by the scientific method it has been established by scientists on consensus alone, without looking at the possibility of alternative interpretations of the evidence.

The reason this has happened is because of the scientific community’s strict adherence to one type of philosophical interpretation of the data, which is: Naturalism interpreted according to Rationalism and Materialism or Subjective Idealism. This Subjective Paradigm forces this assumption onto all data, "before the existence of biological intelligence (which, is an intelligent information management system), old simple information could turn into new more complex information through processes that were created only by random changes to the old simple information.

For inductive reasoning to be valid more than one philosophical interpretation should be considered. An Objective Paradigm should be considered as a possible alternative interpretation of the scientific data using the following philosophical point of view: Naturalism interpreted according to Rationalism, using Naive Realism, and Objective Idealism. This Objective Paradigm allows one to consider this alternative philosophical point of view, " All new information requires a transmitting information management system (which could be an intelligent author or natural selection) and a receiver (which could be an intelligent observer or the natural world) to be relevant, and at one time all information was new and required an information management system to transmit the information into a receiving system."

what do we consider forensic evidence to arrive at a factual conclusion?? Forensic evidence never states that it is 100% right . It points to its conclusion till something better replaces it or it is shown to be correct in all instances so far(and can be demonstrated in experiment). Thats on of the real reasons that evolution can NEVER be considered a religion . Religions deny evidence contrary to its belief system , science is waaay more malleable and compromising.

your argument re inductive v deductive needs more thinking out. Im on a ferry boat going to Cape May NJ to stay over for a few days. Enjoy. I took my tablet so I can watch my woodworking" youtubes" via the wifi and big screen

cientific

That's what forums are for. I made a broad statement to point out one possible philosophical point of view that is not being considered that has no scientific reason to be eliminated, especially when one considers information theory when viewing the information stored in matter and the higgs field, and the processes that information is managing. I never mentioned religion. (today anyway). Why did you?

Evolution cannot be a religion. It is a belief system based on faith in the inductive reasoning of scientists that refuse to consider all philosophical interpretations of the data. That refusal, by definition breaks all the rules of inductive reasoning and scientific naturalism.

Because Intelligence is part of nature from the AI of the DNA in a living organism to the real intelligence exhibited by a brain.