The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[exchemist]

Over the decades that I have debated I have wondered why people who get basic science wrong, and have beliefs contrary to science, can keep coming back time and time again, often with more fervor and even more ridiculous nonsense. I suspect they are actually using the pushback as a sort of mechanism to become even more convinced in their beliefs and mission. It's almost as if they are martyrs for a cause, and as they argue for their beliefs they are pushed back and compressed into a redoubt of faith. Anti-evolution attitudes are religious in nature so this seems a related phenomenon, under the guise of "science".

I think for some it is a sort of hobby, or crusade. There have been articles written about the conspiracist mindset, pointing out that people who go in for one tend also to go in for others as well. It seems to be driven by the sense of identity conferred by membership of an exclusive, minority in-group. What motivates members of the Flat Earth society, for instance, an even more perverse group? I suspect the same goes for creationists as well.

I can sort of understand the emotional appeal, growing up as I did as a Catholic in Protestant Scotland and England in the 1960s. What's for sure is these people are not responding at a rational level.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not sure what you mean by "the old fashioned way". And you might not know what I meant. When I said "auto ignore" I usually see the name and ignore the post. But if it is a thread that I am following I will click on the notification just to keep my notifications going. It was a pain in the butt last night because instead of just making one long unreadable post and leaving he kept hitting the thread again and again.

That is the old fashioned way.

It is an annoyance to have that person--a woman I think--gain interest in a thread. Then bombing begins.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'll go with objective evidence as well but I see none presented that shows a different interpretation of the evidence isn't justified. I see a bunch of believers just repeating the same thing over and over.

If evolution is gradual and based on survival of the fittest then how do you account for the existence of dog? They are smaller, weaker, less intelligent and more dependent than wolves and they arose suddenly because of traits related to behavior just as my theory predicts. The existence of dogs shows Darwin was wrong and I am right. You are wholly incapable of showing that ANY species at ANY time arose through survival of the fittest over a very long time so it's just as well YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THIS POST. You can't show any evidence for Darwin nonsense because... ...drumroll please... ...Darwin was wrong and he was wrong because his beliefs got in the way of his ability to see the evidence. We all see our beliefs preferentially to reality because this is an effect of modern language.

It is because you have no idea at all what you are talking about. You have no theory. What you do have is complete nonsense.

Your concept of fitness is wrong. Just wrong. Your concept of bottleneck is wrong. Just wrong. Your concept of a the entire field of biology is wrong. JUST WRONG.

WHAT YOU POST SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION OR BIOLOGY AT ALL.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Over the decades that I have debated I have wondered why people who get basic science wrong, and have beliefs contrary to science, can keep coming back time and time again, often with more fervor and even more ridiculous nonsense. I suspect they are actually using the pushback as a sort of mechanism to become even more convinced in their beliefs and mission. It's almost as if they are martyrs for a cause, and as they argue for their beliefs they are pushed back and compressed into a redoubt of faith. Anti-evolution attitudes are religious in nature so this seems a related phenomenon, under the guise of "science".

I think you are right on this. The very fact that their wrong ideas are argued against further validates those wrong ideas to them.

We see it here on this thread. The more that people point out the flaws, the more desperately we see the proponents of those flaws cling to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the guy who said "science changes one funeral at a time" was a conspiracy theorists, eh?

It's good to know part of the brainwashing is to belittle and marginalize those who don't agree with you.

No, that quote was not about brain washing. It was about how scientists are human and many of them will not accept new ideas even if they are demonstrably wrong. Where do you get these beliefs from? Is it because your own beliefs are based on nonsense and you are aware of this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is a circular argument. You can't compare a minor change in the coloration of a species to a fish turning into an elephant.

There is no doubt that the individuals of a species will have different traits than a past version of the "same" species. That doesn't give any kind of substance to the concept that the fit survive. Nature doesn't work that way.

You have demonstrated in abundance that you have no idea how nature works. You have shown that you view nature as some sort of presence that is consciously deciding how things turn out. A belief system that was not developed on evidence, reason or understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Homo omnisciencis.

Just meaningless words that you made up. There is no such thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Don't snip the thought. Nature is logical and logic WANTS no unfit individuals. It is illogical for nature to want the unfit so there are none.

It was colloquialism that was explained in the very next sentence that you -snipped-.

It is like watching someone clinging desperately to a useless straw and drowning while surrounded by ropes, rafts and life preservers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

BINGO!!!!!!!

And this shows Darwin was wrong in his assumption that populations remain steady which disproves the entire concept of "evolution".

GIGO. Evolution is GARBAGE.

WRONGO!!!!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see a lot of anti-evolution folks interpret "fitness" like the local guy at the gym. That isn't the case. They need to be aware that fitness is how well an organism can survive in an environment, like the peppered moth that just happened to be better suited to a dirty, sooty, city environment than white moths, who were then targeted more by predators and eaten, leaving fewer white moths. the peppered moths weren't stronger or better, they just happened to have natural darker coloration that gave them an advantage in a dirty environment.

The clad guy wants to dismiss this phenomenon of "fitness" when it is often observed happening. Antibiotics and anti-bacterials are examples of "fitness" in action as bacteria slowly build resistance. I'll bet that poster has had antibiotics at some point, yet denies the very principle that makes them work.

Rats, well there goes my plan for fitness

 

[Subduction Zone]

BINGO!!!!!!!

And this shows Darwin was wrong in his assumption that populations remain steady which disproves the entire concept of "evolution".

GIGO. Evolution is GARBAGE.

Wow! An example of fractal wrongness!

"BINGO!!!!!!!"

Nope there was no "bingo"


"And this shows Darwin was wrong"

Nope, Still wrong.

"Darwin was wrong in his assumption"

You would need to show that Darwin made assumptions. Claiming "assumption" puts the burden of proof upon the person making the claim.

"assumption that populations remain steady" Urkkhhk!!? When did he ever assume that? In fact his work is quite often about species that go extinct.

'disproves the entire concept of "evolution". '

No, it doesn't since he made no such assumptions.


"GIGO. Evolution is GARBAGE"

You attempted to introduce GARBAGE. You failed. Evolution still wins.

 

[cladking]

Fantasy. There are several of us that are trained and practicing biologists on here.

Then you aren't aware it was Max Planck who said science advances one funeral at a time and even after I tell you, you still don't know.

Life is learning and if you aren't learning at least one new thing every day then you are doing it wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then you aren't aware it was Max Planck who said science advances one funeral at a time and even after I tell you, you still don't know.

Life is learning and if you aren't learning at least one new thing every day then you are doing it wrong.

The fantasy part is all that you claim without basis.

You are not learning.

 

[cladking]

You attempted to introduce GARBAGE. You failed. Evolution still wins.

If survival of the fittest applies to evolutionary "theory" then my theory will prevail because my theory can beat the hell the out yours.

You realize you've regressed to just gainsaying the opposing argument. Gainsaying is like the children on the playground with a chorus of "is too"/ "is not".

I will not sink top your level.

 

[ratiocinator]

Life is learning...

So why do you studiously avoid learning anything at all about the theory of evolution?

 

[cladking]

The fantasy part is all that you claim without basis.

You are not learning.

Why don't you list at least one of these fantasies and show logic or evidence it is wrong?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then you aren't aware it was Max Planck who said science advances one funeral at a time and even after I tell you, you still don't know.

Life is learning and if you aren't learning at least one new thing every day then you are doing it wrong.

You claim to know things as true that are completely wrong. It has been pointed out to you continuously since you got here. You refuse to learn. You routinely say things that have no factual basis as if you are revealing some truth hidden by a great science conspiracy. Your revealed truth has no basis. It answers no questions. It is useless, made up claims that you support by repeating endlessly.

 

[cladking]

So why do you studiously avoid learning anything at all about the theory of evolution?

If you read even one of my posts then you'd see I don't believe in evolution. To say it another way every interpretation is wrong.

 

[cladking]

You claim to know things as true that are completely wrong.

But you can't cite a single one and argue about it. You just read something with which you disagree and tell me what you believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why don't you list at least one of these fantasies and show logic or evidence it is wrong?

You put your fantasies on heavy rotation. Like a Top 40 of nonsense. You offer no evidence. Where you loosely use some sort of logic, it is not externally consistent. The internal logic is based on the assumption that you are correct about something that is externally wrong.

I don't have to list the fantasies of a person that is consistently wrong. Not playing your nonsense game is not evidence that I am wrong.