131
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2020 11:45 am
@farmerman,
I love’em. A most ingenious and efficient design.

I’m asking if you can plausibly explain how it could have come about ‘naturally'.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2020 12:21 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
I’m asking if you can plausibly explain how it could have come about ‘naturally'.
Im not an authority on the biochem of ATP and oxygen transfer by eukaryotes, everything I learnt is from reading and discussion with colleagues


Ive asked you to read stuff by Lynn Margulis because she was the one who first noted that the Mitochondria in all animal and plant life appeared to be free living at some time before the somatic cells did assimilation of the free living MtDNA and annexed and extended the mtDNA in their own cells. If you woulda payed attention to me back then when you were asking other questions similarly scripted by AIG and DI.
Lynn MArgulis, who died in 2012 had first been poo poo'd by science .She's been "resurrected" by science (especially recent work at Cold Spring Harbor where Margulis work on
endosymbiosis was tested and found acccurate by Koonin (2010) and by Lane and Martin (2010) who argued the ionic transfer systematics in mtDNA in eukaryotic symbionts.
I was a fan of her work because it actually made sense from an ecology and worldwide species distribution through geologic history.The veracity of her "circumstantial evidence" was borne out by other evidence that showed throughout geologic history species were NEVER a mish mash of all "kinds" from early to recent ages. Everything lived in its environment and in its time and mtDNA of many species show that they have not fully assimilated their own mitochondria because the species had changed its life style or environment.
Cheetahs' are such an example .


I predict that polar bears WILL evolve (eg the subspecies in the Hudson Bay estuary is already changing its diet based on an open sea environment and the irATP needs will be entirely different from those bears that were basing their diets on stealth attack).

I asked you to at least scan Margulis"evolution of the eukaryotic cell" a few years ago. You insulted me that all I could do is post some paper and be done. Since you believe you are as smart as Dr margulis but dont want to be bothered with the actual work involved, Im gonna leave you with that recc .
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2020 12:57 pm
@farmerman,
I have not disputed that mitochondria might have been 'free floating' entities. Might very well have. That’s one reason I chose them as an example. You can’t get much simpler and yet so inexplicable by abiogenesis/evolution.

I’ve said many times that I’m not interested in trading books and papers, you would claim any I brought up as tainted in some way. I’m only interested in discussing things person to person.

We'll talk cars next time.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2020 01:11 pm
References to abiogenesis are religionist bullsh*t. How life arose is irrelevant to evolution theory. There can be no evolution until there is life--how it arose simply has nothing to do with with the process. Religionists drag that one out because they have nothing else to talk about. They certainly come up with nothing to falsify evolution theory.

In fact, it's the camel's nose under the tent. It's a silly attempt to introduce their imaginary god into the discussion.What a lame load of purest horsewh*t.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2020 01:28 pm
@Setanta,
We can talk about dogs next time.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2020 01:53 pm
@Leadfoot,
well , thats encouraging. You wanna assert things but you dont wanna hear what others have to say.

Quote:
You can’t get much simpler and yet so inexplicable by abiogenesis/evolution.
protista, and archea and six "lugged" bacteriaphages dont count as life??

Have a real nice day.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2020 07:19 pm
@Leadfoot,
You can't tell me what to "talk about," or when. You're full of puppy poop.
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 10:34 am
@JimmyJ,
If evolution is true and we evolved from apes and then we lost our fur and then evolution decided we needed fur back.Why don’t we have fur ? Did evolution drop the ball on that one?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 11:09 am
@Jasper10,
We "lost our fur" because our hominim ancestors lived in the Great Rift Valley in a time when it was nearly desert. The trees disappeared as the climate changed, so our ancestors became bipedal hunter-gatherers in response. All of that was driven by natural selection. By the time hominims began to move into cooler climes, they had mastered fire.

(By the way, the author of this thread, Jimmy J, is long gone. The thread, however, is alive and well.)
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 11:16 am
@Setanta,
Sorry am I missing the point.Where do the clothes come in though?Evolution could have saved itself an awful lot of money if it had done its job and given us our fur back.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 11:26 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
There can be no evolution until there is life-

Whatever pre-biotic processes evolved into life had to become 'life' through a process of evolution.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 11:30 am
@Jasper10,
Only some humans moved into the periglacial regions during the ice ages. Cro Magnon people and their predecessors are the ancestors of "whites," who are in fact hairier than east Asians, south Asians and Africans. Evolution is a process, not a conscious entity. Anything which benefits reproduction will sooner or later, and generally sooner rather than later, be inscribed in the genome by reproductive success. By the time that Cro Magnon thrived in the periglacial regions, humans already had fire, they knew how to cure hides and make leather, and they had even begun weaving fabrics from plant sources. Why would they need fur? There was no evolutionary advantage to a full coat of fur, and individuals who were hairier only had a very slight advantage--not enough to "give us our fur back." I'd say that you problem is that you see evolution as a substitute for your god. Evolution in a relentless process, but it is not a purposive entity which "decides" to do things.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 11:38 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
There was no evolutionary advantage to a full coat of fur, and individuals who were hairier only had a very slight advantage--not enough to "give us our fur back."

Probably the evolutionary advantage of having more body hair is/was due to the corresponding testosterone levels that made people stronger and more aggressive during times when manual labor and/or physical fighting advantage couldn't be overridden with technological power/weaponry.
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 11:42 am
@Setanta,
Thanks for your explanation.Still think it would have saved an awful lot of time and effort if evolution had just gone that extra mile and done it job.If it had I would be convinced of your explanation ...but it didn’t ...so I’m not ...sorry.Also,there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever....nothing...that convinces me anyway that shows all the very slow stages of the thing that is supposed to have slithered out of the sea and morphed into all the different types of animals.Ziltch....
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 11:57 am
@Jasper10,
Careful Jasper, those evolved monkeys will fling the old 'God of the gaps' **** at ya.
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 12:08 pm
@Leadfoot,
God or no God...I don’t think that matters in this debate at all.I’ve never mentioned God in any of my posts...I honestly think that even Darwin would have given up on his own theory if he was still alive so weak is the evidence out there.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 12:12 pm
@Jasper10,
Believe what you like, it is a matter of indifference to me.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 12:26 pm
@Jasper10,
Quote:
God or no God...I don’t think that matters in this debate at all.I’ve never mentioned God in any of my posts...I honestly think that even Darwin would have given up on his own theory if he was still alive so weak is the evidence out there.

I hear ya dude. Not say'n you said the 'G' word, but if the Darwinites get wind that you question their ancestry, they will plaster you with the GOTG thing quicker than you can back out of their cage.

Been try’n to debate 'Evolution' on a scientific basis for years here. They'll drag in religion every time. And if you have ever expressed any interest in theology anywhere, forget about it.

But right, God should have noth'n to do with the argument.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 03:53 pm
@Leadfoot,
I should have added that I think you're right about Darwin changing his mind if alive today.

The final nail in Evolution's coffin was when the structure and language of DNA was understood at least enough to see the obvious implications. That was about one hundred years after he published 'Origin'.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2020 04:02 pm
@Leadfoot,
??? why is that??? His ideas are all supported by good irrefutable evidence. The only thing he got wrong was that he never could venture a guess as to why traits were "preserved" (Even though it ws included in the title of "...Origins..."
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/22/2020 at 11:20:27