Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

Quote:

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!!

you are making a very illogical mistake here, can you find it yourself?

0 Replies

Quote:

The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features. (For details and documentation, please see: “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information,” “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones's Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,” or “Opening Darwin's Black Box”.)

0 Replies

Quote:

The failure of molecular and anatomical homology to provide evidence for universal common descent. (For details and documentation, please see: “A Primer on the Tree of Life".)

0 Replies

Quote:

The failure of the fossil record to provide evidence for gradual neo-Darwinian change. (For details and documentation, please see “Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology” or “Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record”.)

0 Replies

Quote:

The failure of developmental biology to bolster common descent. (For details and documentation, please see: “Evolving views of embryology,” “A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology,” or “Textbooks misuse embryology” or "Challenging the Precious Pharyngula" or "Three Flawed Evolutionary Models of Embryological Development and One Correct One.")

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

News clip to Quahog.
You are describing a firm "belief" in Intelligent Design. You must understand that ID does NOT deny evolution. It described a circumstance of "Intelligently driven evolution"

Most of your I papers try to deny common descent but haven't been able to do a good job

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

fm mentions the Nobel Prize in order to convert two words into weights on his side of the scales.

I know of one Nobel Prize winner who would have scoffed at the idea of a proper evolutionist getting his thighs all in a lather over the abductions in Nigeria.

There are many people in this world, some of them famous, who might lean on fm's field gate looking at his lambs and slowly shaking their heads from side to side saying "Tragic. How tragic it is." Some of them could easily have gone on to lay the Swiftian irony on really thick. I can do it myself.

I would do a few sentences about the beautiful sylvan setting leading into a scientific explanation of the reality which it disguises. I grew up among lambs and calves and piglets and chicks. And I saw them in the butcher's shop when my mother sent me on my bike for the weekly order. I saw rabbits pop out of their burrows into a net and on to my plate the day after and its skin drying on the line to make it fit to be a part of a pair of rabbit's fur gloves.

There are dangers with your pleas for science. Someone might take you at your word you silly old fool. And I know you couldn't take it. I've seen them wilt. "Not in front of my ladies" indeed.

I have only tested you so far with the bar at a level a mouse can jump over.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

nope , I don't belief in ID, however the arguments are very strong from that field AGAINST evolution, offcourse nothing will convince you, because you are too deep in your religion,.

oh and btw not even one counterargument from you, none!

figures.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

I don't think that is a genuine Catch 22 example Q.

How about--if you believe in evolution is proves you are sane but if you are sane you couldn't believe in evolution except as a hammer to pound the Church to dust and all its ridiculous inhibitions regarding sexual activities with it.

Like with Darwin who was fond of animals but not enough to get in the way of the pursuit of knowledge in the specific manner he chose for that noble purpose. Whether he would have tortured plants as he did, we know he tortured pigeons, had he known what Acharya Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose, CSI, CIE, FRS discovered, I don't know.

Not that mythology hadn't explained it all thousands of years previously. Scientists don't trust myths. Not when there are reputations to make and funds to apply for.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

like the brightest bulb in the package.

I dare say there might be a package of bulbs somewhere which contains bulbs of different illuminating power but I must confess never having heard of one.

That's a terrible metaphor fm. Packages of bulbs contain unit modules of carefully standarised brightness although I know they won't be at the micro level.

Metaphor needs delicate handling if one is not to make an ass of oneself.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

"New genes" eh? First of all you don't know what genes are and secondly don't you need exogamy to facilitate their appearance?

1 Reply

@spendius,

no you don't need "exogamy". everytime DNA separates there is a potential for new gene insertions (mostly by repeats or misreads of the CGAT ). Are you that far behind in your reading?
Or is the ADHD kicking in with short term memory problems. Weve talked about new genes many times. look up orthologous and paralogous genes

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Im not the one whose deeply into ID n Fred Hoyle ****, you are. Ive earned my opinions by doing my own research in trining an in work. I don't need some douche bag like you making up crap and then saying theor not an IDer when all you've been doing is huddling around the bases pf the Disscovery Institutes mission statement.

OF course the ID argument attempts are "against" evolution. Its because the religious views of ID are attempts at controlling the "flock" of believers. Wheres the educational affiliations? read a little deeper and follow the money dummy

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Ive reviewed as much of those "Evolution News and Views " as my stomick could take. As it turns out, this is the "research arm" of the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE.(why am I not surprised). Its a slickened version of the old newsletters that I had some of my students read nd critique (without comment). Not one of them was fooled enough to "buy the crap and drink the Koolaid"

There is a HUUUGE hard-on that the Discovery Institute has for Pennsylvania. For it was there that the 3rd District Fed Court decided that ID was "religiously based and therefore NOT "REAL" science".

The Discovery Institute (DI cause Ill get tired) promised that, in 2002, they would be publishing in peer reviewed journals the results of their "Search for universal intelligence" (SUVI).

So far, all bullshit that seems only to be focused on rescouring old arguments
like Haeckels developmental embryology,

Im gonna read that paper on "How the fossil record supports ID"

It may be a great paper for students to do some comparative analyses from their own FIELD DERIVED knowledge.

When are your ID bddies actually going to go oit in the field and do some research of their own. Right now, they are only involved in fact-free faith based polemic.

I like the beta versions of these papaers, they are certainly slick in their presentation. The Ahmansen money is getting a new workout

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

read a little deeper and follow the money dummy

Aah! Orwell's "stick rattling in a bucket" is alive and well in elite scientific circles.

As I said,fm, you drag the good name of Science in the dirt.

Don't you know that a larger picture emerges from all the little pictures and it is that larger picture which causes people to deny evolution whilst admitting that all the little pictures sound plausible in their own little way.

Quote:

no you don't need "exogamy". everytime DNA separates there is a potential for new gene insertions (mostly by repeats or misreads of the CGAT ). Are you that far behind in your reading?

I didn't say that exogamy is needed. It improves the chances. There is increased potential and actualisation.

And you don't know what a gene is.

I don't know why you don't duck down all the time. It would save you energy.

How do you know that a culture doesn't amplify a trait in humans?

You can't afford to know that can you?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

3rd District Fed Court decided that ID was "religiously based and therefore NOT "REAL" science".

It's obvious that ID is religiously based. But that it is not real science is a non sequitur.. Prof. Greer will put you right on that.

It's the science of material you have chosen to Ignore being a bit coy as you are. You're uncomfortable, as they were at Dover, with the seething masses of humanity.

The DI can't say what they really mean.

1 Reply

@spendius,

if it IS religion AND it was trying to be taught in BIOLOGY, it wasn't SCIENCE. maybe I could straighten Germain out a bit. (I thought she died)

Quote:

It's the science of material you have chosen to Ignore being a bit coy as you are. You're uncomfortable, as they were at Dover, with the seething masses of humanity.

. As often and as hard as you try to be clever , you come up smelling like a dead shad.

0 Replies

It's teeming not seething, (in your words to farmerman) you dummy. I would never call someone a dummy, but you seem to think this term is OK to use, so I borrowed it from you.

0 Replies

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-16/13000-year-old-skeleton-found-in-mexican-cave/5456472

2 Replies

@Wilso,

Well, now you've done it. Poor Spendi will be foaming at the mouth because he can't conceive that these early humans were created by God, because the old and new testaments didn't mention earlier humanity encased in ice. He's a strict believer that God formed the earth in six days and then rested because all the work was done, and he had to get to temple.

Seriously though, those photos are amazing.

2 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know