Why do people deny evolution?

And how about this one?


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/mathematicians_and_evolution002387.html

there ya go!

You'rs just feeding a couple of trolls, now, fm.

are you sure? why are you saying this?

He has a little switch in his head which flips itself from time to time and a recorded voice makes a vital and original contribution to the debate.

lol, nice one (again)

well, you are right, I see it as Automatic Robotic Respons Software (ARRS)

You've got a wrong conclusion from a 50 year old piece of work'The problem is that you think "Neo Darwinism" is what evolutionary theory is. (It aint). Richard Goldschmidt was the author of most of the "neo Darwinian" thought. SOme of his ideas were that

1.species arose via "saltation" (apparent jumping across many layers of intermediate species ). Saltation was a point of argument nd is often confused with Gould's Punctuate Equilibrium (that's also untrue)

2. Goldschmidt wanted all to accept that ALL evolution was adaptive, diversifying, gradual, and advancing. This would only account for "polytypic species and not "new" species.


3.Goldschmidt denied that subspecies were potential incipient species . (Goldschmidt was the one who really invented the terms "Micro and macro evolution"

He was the enfant terrible of evolutionary thought. Just like Gould and Eldredge aren't worshipped for their Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis, Godlschmidt has a number of things he got screwed up 9as well as things he got right).
Just like Haldane, who the creationists are fond of calling Haldanse "Dilemma", realized he fucked up in his attempt at a statistical mathematical denouncement of macroevolution. HE NEVER KNEW THAT several genetic modifications could occur at once on the genoe and the phenotype.

In the 50 (almost) years since the Wistar Symposium, weve learned a lot about the mechanisms of evolution and its tracks in genetics, paleo, developmental embryology etc. Neo Darwinism is pretty much dead except for some of the less severe Christian sects that need ID to direct their evolution.Imagine all the discoveries that clearly show our own relationships with animals that lay eggs externally or animals that see various shades of color. We have all their genes an (like the egg yolk sac, the genes are turned off but are still on our genome like "fossils")

PS , Medawar wasn't a "denier" of evolution as you imply , he was, after all, the father of the whole concept of the evolution of patterns of cellular an phenotypic senescence.

Think of all the "new math" that's been model driven to analyze the evolution of plant groups through time. Theres been so much good data and evidence that's been discovered since 1966 that , had the symposium hd it in its hnd, it could ha`ve ended rather quickly.
Your reliance on some really old news doesn't help your arguments at all.
(unless you dig deeper to find out what the original basis for "Neo Darwinian" thought was all about.

no probem. If I can at least light a candle to show them where their thinking has gone wrong, then I feel like my time wasn't wasted here.

so you don't read at all!


riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighhhht!!!

You should have been here, Q, when a flagella was compared to a foot pump. In a court of law. Under oath. Nobody laughed except me.

They did so much want it to be true. It was intended to prove that irreducible complexity was nonsense. A foot pump being easy to explain you see. So it followed, for Judge Jones, that a flagella was also easy to explain.

The case made a lot of money for some though.

lol, yes, but sadly that is the level we are dealing here with


btw looks like a very false analogy to me, logically speaking

Ive read that material many many times in other venues. Its quite clear. You've just failed to understand what its saying. thats all.
You should always ask yourself
"Has anything changed in 50 years?"

yeh, lots.
That's why we give new Nobel Prizes each year

Mostly you laugh because you don't understand and its always easy to "smile knowingly" when in actuality youre just raving idiot.

BTW, it was the lovely IDers that introduced the spinning Em motorized tail to the court. It was Ken Miller that shut em down.
When the concept of Irreducible Complexity was demolished so handily by Miller and Forrest and Jerry Coyne, and then the word "Creationism " was left in"Of Pandas..." to meld with Intelligent Design, whose dumass fault was that?
It gave a lot of laffs to the Judge.



If one stages a cort fight to make a religious point, they should be much better prepared than those clowns were.

my o my keep the AH's coming!

Do you mean that they would have won the case if they had been better prepared?

I told you they were clowns at the time. The case would not have lasted a day with me in for the school.

There are no hiding places in court of the sort you specialise in. Even Jones would have stopped insults for answers. Persistence with them a contempt of court.

you never checked the stories out about the Nobel Prizes i guess?

Just as persistence is in contempt of this thread.

I think it's all a catch 22.

if you don't agree with the evolution hoax, your dumb, stupid and what have you, and iuf you are aa huuuuuuuuuuuuuuugeeee fan of this nonsense, then you are accepted as a member of the club!, but if you don't agree, with the evolution hoax, and so on and so forth.

But you know what Groucho Marx said abaout being a member of a club....?

Oh quick, lets inform the media!
Im sure you are someones "Sock puppet" because you don't really sound like the brightest bulb in the package.
Evidence for "macro evolution"

FOSIL RECORDs of organisms from bacteria to primates and most everything in between. If you deny it, tht merely means you've not taken any time to understand it

GENETICS- The genomes of cladistically related animals separated by higher taxa than species clearly demonstrate the retention and development of genes (some genes turn off, but new genes on higher taxa didn't exist in lower but related taxa)

"Calculting it statistically is just bullshit" anyone can develop any program that says what you wish. We develop models of evolution that are statistically driven and many people believe they are bullshit too.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwnn

not saying anything again by fm
why am I not surprised?

I was wondering when the story would be presented. Ill bet you watch "Secrets of the Aliens"
all those douche bags who try to con you into thinking like Eric von Daniken are just trying to seel books on outrageous subjects. The outrageouser the better.

Elders of Zion.




CHECK PLEASE!!

Im the only one whos presented any real information in this little dialogue of ours. You've asserted and clipped some silly fringey notes . Are you that gullible?

Did you flunk math and science in HS?

I detect a bit o bitterness in your tones.