Why do people deny evolution?

@livinglava,

Quote:

Also, fish have tails and so do dogs as well as lizards, but those are all different classes within the same phylum, so you can't have a single phylum that applies to different classes, when class is a subset of phylum.

This is the sequence for binomial nomenclature of vertebrates(or those with a notochord)

KINGDOM

PHYLUM

CLASS
agnatha
placodermi
chondrichthyes
osteichthyes
amphibia
reptilia
aves
mammalia

ORDER
FAMILY
Genus
Species

You CAN have all those classes under a single Phylum because PHYLUM occupies a hierarchical rung higher than class.

ALL vertebrates are chordates period.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I'm interested in what you're talking about because I never knew there was any possibility for body structure to change without corresponding changes at the genetic level.

Well thats where the debate had come from , which came first an evolutionary change or some genetic mutation? or did a mutation occur that merely ALLOWED for some change to slip in there.
Im on no side because arguments abound on either pole

Now I'm curious what different arguments there are on both sides, because it seems fairly obvious to me that individual organisms contain recombinations of the parental DNA and maybe some mutations, and so environmental factors that cause adaptations to favor certain organisms over others are going allow those organisms to survive longer and reproduce more than other organisms whose genetic limitations prevent them from adapting.

Of course, I don't think it is so simple because multiple factors combine in various situations to help a given organism survive. E.g. you might be very hairy, but you are also smart enough to look for a good nesting spot in a cold winter, and then there could also be other issues with your digestive system and organs that allow you to hibernate more effectively, etc. so there are numerous aspects of organisms that are slightly changing and becoming expressed or recessive between generations, so it's not a linear process of progressively changing genetically and thus adapting. Different individuals with similar traits are also going to survive/reproduce or not in a given generation for specific reasons, and net gene change is only going to occur over long time-spans of multiple generations.

I'm sure these researchers you were talking about address these kinds of issues. I just wish you and/or others would discuss them here instead of referencing other texts, lectures, etc. that require more time and effort to delve into.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you are a real fuckin idiot. I saw izzys comment about chordates and I disagreed with his disagreement with you. Set is just set and will say anything if it uses more than two syllables. Basically both set and Izzy were sorta incorrect but actually misinterpreted what the word "tail" can mean in anatomy. When olli agreed with you , I agreed with him . I have you on ignore and I only caught the argument that izzy and set had made. I actually PMed them to correct them so it wouldnt become an interminable multi page Frank Apisa style BS argument.

Looks like I fucked that up. If you wanta rage at the harkening of the plight, sont talk to me, I just like to keep the facts right. So in my world. I only agreed with Oralloy and corrected set and Izzy earlier, YOU, I have nothing involving me in your debates with whoever.

I don't know why you get defensive and vulgar. I wasn't raging at anything. I was just looking at what people were saying about this chordate-tail issue and trying to figure out why and who, if anyone, thought it was relevant to go in that direction or whether they were just going off on a tangent to disregard the reason I mentioned it in the first place.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You CAN have all those classes under a single Phylum because PHYLUM occupies a hierarchical rung higher than class.

ALL vertebrates are chordates period.

I know that. It is taught in high school biology.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

If you knew that , why did you ask this???

Quote:

Also, fish have tails and so do dogs as well as lizards, but those are all different classes within the same phylum, so you can't have a single phylum that applies to different classes, when class is a subset of phylum.

Youdont have a great command of your means to express thoughts do you.

Lets say the phylum is SPORTS

lower class is BASEBALL
FOOTBALL
SOCCER
PING PONG
GOLF
TENNIS.

They all use a ball but they all fit under the category of SPORTS, just substitute TAILS for "the ball".

now you got it

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I gotta go cut some hayfields . My secretary will take over. Be careful, hes mean.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Neil Shubin was an excellent speaker on the subject of "genetic fossils".
The whole thing was live and presented virtually with all participants safely at home. It was pretty much a zoom presentation .They still dont have the lip an voice syncing done right. I dont know why they cannot delay the voice and lead with the visual sorta relativistically (since the picture is satellite assisted and the voices are not. Once you go off the rail of synchronicity the entire rest of the program looks like a badly dubbed Godzilla Movie.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

If you knew that , why did you ask this???
Quote:
Also, fish have tails and so do dogs as well as lizards, but those are all different classes within the same phylum, so you can't have a single phylum that applies to different classes, when class is a subset of phylum.

That's not a question. It was an explanation of why you can't have a phylum that applies to different classes because 'class' is a more specific level of classification than phylum.

They were saying that animals without tails are in a different category than animals with tails, but I was pointing out that there are reptiles, amphibians, and mammals all with and without tails in different classes of the same phylum, chordates.

I don't know whether the person who raised the tail issue was serious or just trying to cause debate, but it's a diversion from what I was originally trying to point out, which is that humans are biased toward empathizing with creatures that are more like us physically.

Quote:

Youdont have a great command of your means to express thoughts do you.

I do, but you're bad at reading. You just asked about why I asked a question that wasn't even phrased as a question.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Im not the one with the reading problem. I asked you why you asked me that quote when
You already said you knew that!!. Were you just trying to be cute or are you clueless?

HERES a chart of the classification of Chordates. Look at it and you will easily see the magic of hierarchy of the Linnaean system of binomial nomenclature(Except here theyve only listed the common names..

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.tGYC_YxYbJxazQA9qZelggAAAA&w=196&h=160&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&dpr=1.5&pid=3.1&rm=2

2 Replies

@farmerman,

one of the simpl minded things is in the supreorder of Fish(pisces) v tetrapoda (animals with vertebra and 4 appendages), the major difference between fish an tetrapods is that tetrapods HAVE A ROTATABLE NECK upon whichsits the head. Fish do not.

veryboy seems to be confused about "tails" . Tails (and the very important veertebrae and /or notochord are the fact that this hollwo structure is available either only in embryo state and then disappears or its a permanent fixture.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im not the one with the reading problem. I asked you why you asked me that quote when
You already said you knew that!!. Were you just trying to be cute or are you clueless?

I was just explaining what I explained. You including hostilities in whatever you post to turn discussion into fighting.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

learning this stuff is your responsibility, not mine. I have no obligation to sit here with a baby spoon.

It all gets back to why you deny evolution doesnt it? I really dont care why or why not. Have fun.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

learning this stuff is your responsibility, not mine. I have no obligation to sit here with a baby spoon.

It all gets back to why you deny evolution doesnt it? I really dont care why or why not. Have fun.

You're just confused. I don't deny evolution. Evolution is how God designs organisms. You attack my POV because you don't understand it and it doesn't fit with your simplistic opposition between religion and science.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

can you provide any evidence of these religious beliefs?? You are a fan of theistic evolution , that was never in doubt. Thats a position that the obtuse take to deal with a subject they never take the time to understand, (but claim they do)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

can you provide any evidence of these religious beliefs?? You are a fan of theistic evolution , that was never in doubt. Thats a position that the obtuse take to deal with a subject they never take the time to understand, (but claim they do)

You believe in evolution and other theories supported by science, but yet you want to argue against God being the creator of whatever it is that is.

I just understand the logic of attributing existence to a creator, and so I have no problem attributing evolution or anything else about the way the universe works to God.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I dont argue against a god. I dont know. I just see no possible evidence to support such beliefs. Its like a conspiracy theory and its basis on a fact free-explanation.

If you dont ever want to support a researcheable answer, itd be better to just say that "aliens did it all as they passed the early earth"
At least one day you can probably find indisputable evidence that they do or dont exist.
I dont see where you can find evidence for a god', let alone its involvement with creation and evolution. Whereas "god -free" evolution has all the evidence in its favor.

Ken Miller ,well known from the Dover Trial, an evolutionary scientist emeritus at Brown, is a Christian whose "personal god" is totally transcendent of creation and evolution.
Ken's a bright guy but he's stuck himself to the existence of a deity that has no purpose in being, because in his teaching , he is unable to present any deity supportive evidence, and as a good scientist, his god becomes more of a symbol, like Little Oscar of Oscar Meyer kosher weiners

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I dont argue against a god. I dont know. I just see no possible evidence to support such beliefs. Its like a conspiracy theory and its basis on a fact free-explanation.

You do, though. I read so many posts where you fight against religious people by pushing evolution as their antithesis. I am on your side with teaching evolution, but I am against framing it as something that contradicts religion. Whatever we discover about the truth of nature, that is revelation from God, assuming it is true and not false.

Quote:

If you dont ever want to support a researcheable answer, itd be better to just say that "aliens did it all as they passed the early earth"

If aliens do anything, they are also creatures of God operating within the creation. What you don't seem to understand about attributing things to God is that it is no different than attributing them to 'nature.' 'God' is just a way to referring to nature as having authorship.

Quote:

At least one day you can probably find indisputable evidence that they do or dont exist.
I dont see where you can find evidence for a god', let alone its involvement with creation and evolution. Whereas "god -free" evolution has all the evidence in its favor.

Is there evidence for or against the existence of 'nature?' What about 'the universe?' Can you prove that the universe does or doesn't exist?

Quote:

Ken Miller ,well known from the Dover Trial, an evolutionary scientist emeritus at Brown, is a Christian whose "personal god" is totally transcendent of creation and evolution.
Ken's a bright guy but he's stuck himself to the existence of a deity that has no purpose in being, because in his teaching , he is unable to present any deity supportive evidence, and as a good scientist, his god becomes more of a symbol, like Little Oscar of Oscar Meyer kosher weiners

God's existence is just a given when you frame the universe in a way that attributes authorship to it. It's like when a child watches a movie and doesn't understand the movie has been written/directed/produced/etc. The child thinks they are just watching a set of events unfold on screen. Similarly, we can just look at the events of nature (the universe) unfold like a child watching a movie, or we can see it as a complex production that is produced by a grand intentional consciousness.

It's not a question of proving whether it is true or not, but only whether or not to frame/understand existence in terms of God as an author/authority behind the nature of the universe. Nothing changes about the laws of physics because you allow God-consciousness to operate freely within your mind. It's just that you become aware of everything as a testament to a grand design that goes beyond humans, aliens, or any other particular mind/consciousness that exists within the universe.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

God's existence is just a given when you frame the universe in a way that attributes authorship to it

I know, really kind of ass backwards aint it?

Much science fiction is based on the same stuff. When you say that Im denying that as a "FACT" , I can only plead guilty . I dont believe in little green fairies or a hollow earth for the same reasons. If evidence never supports and, in fact, often denies the existence of supreme beings (and little green fairies), I think I follow the train of fact, not belief.

Abrahams stories and both Genesis tales of Creation are not unique examples of god myths. Many separate tales exist in the world. These tales fill a need in people who dont have the time for special training or the interests in todays science. Science doesnt consciously try to deny the existence of gods, it just doesnt see ANY evidence for such beings.
WHen the Abrahamic myths are given some intersection with a "divinity", we dont have ANY evidence that these ancients had anything going for them other than the compilation of tales that we all know are mostly BULLSHIT.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

This is getting kinda boring. I think my only contributions to this thread hve been the clearing up of binomial nomenclature. My work is done.As far as discussing the existence of gods (let alone their involvement in biology and earths history) I find kind of inane. I suggest that you find someone who rally believes as you do, I really have other interests.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

God's existence is just a given when you frame the universe in a way that attributes authorship to it

Much science fiction is based on the same stuff. When you say that Im denying that as a "FACT" , I can only plead guilty . I dont believe in little green fairies or a hollow earth for the same reasons. If evidence never supports and, in fact, often denies the existence of supreme beings (and little green fairies), I think I follow the train of fact, not belief.

Little green fairies are hypothetical creatures within the universe. God is not an entity within the universe, but rather the personification of universal power as a whole. It's just a question of whether or not you recognize that the universe is all unified under the same laws of nature. If you do, but you refuse to understand people who talk about it in terms of 'God,' you're just nitpicking terminology.

Quote:

Abrahams stories and both Genesis tales of Creation are not unique examples of god myths. Many separate tales exist in the world. These tales fill a need in people who dont have the time for special training or the interests in todays science. Science doesnt consciously try to deny the existence of gods, it just doesnt see ANY evidence for such beings.

Issues of which religious ideas are right or wrong are separate from the overall issue you are making out of simply talking about the universe in terms of God the Almighty.

Quote:

WHen the Abrahamic myths are given some intersection with a "divinity", we dont have ANY evidence that these ancients had anything going for them other than the compilation of tales that we all know are mostly BULLSHIT.

Your opinion of certain religious ideas is just your subjective opinion, but you should realize that when those ancient people were studying the universe and contemplating their discoveries, they were thinking about the same universe that you or any scientist does when we think about Big Bang Theory. So we are all thinking about the same God, whether or not we agree on how His universe works.

The problem with atheists is they want to censor the use of the idea of God to describe the universe, which they agree exists.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know