Why do so many people doubt evolution?

I am to demonstrate to people of walks of life that evolution is a hateful ideology, a belief; and that in its methodology it is not any different from creationism or a pink elephant belief or the FSM belief. It is up to the audience to decide what to impose upon itslef. I do not care.

 

Another atheistic propaganda site http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...ny-people-doubt-evolution-44.html#post4729063

Evolutionists protest when Cr-sts use C-n sites but they feel it's OK to use E-st site. Ev-sts have no sence of basic decency or honesty

 

ALL members please note the Mission Statement of this forum:

And also the rules, particularly those about flamebait and personal attacks - remember to discuss the topic, not bait and attack each other.

Cenydd
Site Moderator

 

It also doesn't answer where gravity comes from, but guess what, it isn't supposed to since it's neither a theory on gravity or a theory on the start of life.

 

If other people don't want to read it, that's their own problem.

Those assorted and sundry by-products are nearly useless to everything but that one organism though, which has totally novel enzymes for its breakdown into usable metabolites.

Evolution refers to more than just speciation; the appearance of novel enzymes is also a very strong indicator of evolution. Especially with regards to bacteria, which are completely asexual organisms that don't have the relatively easy species delineation mark of "is the offspring of two different individuals fertile?"

You just admitted to speciation here: a novel genome arising through genetic change.

<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

You're posting a link so a wide audience won't read it! <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

Yes it is, because this arose without human intervention in the least.

Nylon byproducts aren't biodegradable, and those designer polymers are made to work with pre-existing enzymes that can metabolize similar existing polymers (such as cellulose, glycogen, and other organic polymers).

You obviously don't talk to many actual biologists. All of my biology professors and fellow grad students acknowledge the ability of prokarya to survive and thrive in the world, and their sheer diversity on this planet, as well as their power to explain evolution due to being essentially perfect model organisms. Just because you're ignorant of that, though, does not mean it is not true.

 

RNA acts both as a heritable molecule (ie, one that can pass on traits to offspring) and as an enzyme (ie, it can make certain chemical reactions more likely to happen). Thus, it is likely RNA was the primal molecule for life, in conjunction with early phospholipids which made early cell membranes (which would occur simply through hydrophilic/hydrophobic reactions between the polar and non-polar ends of a phospholipid). We know ribose and simple purines and pyrimidines can arise through non-living means, so the so-called "RNA world" is the most likely hypothesis at the moment.

 

Christianity.

 

Evolutionary biologists have offered dozens of credible theories to explain how this could happen. Just because you haven't bothered to read about them does not mean they don't exist.

 

This, alas, is what makes talking about anything with fundamentalists such a depressing experience. They are conviced that God gave them their particular superb human brains to put away in a box under the bed.

 

Impossible standard of evidence required. Fossilization is uncommon enough that we're likely never going to find a record of the very first living thing. The best we can do is look at later examples of living things and observe how they relate (and they do).

It's very much like coming across a fallen tree in the forest. You see a log, you see the branches cut off, footprints leading to and from the tree, and an axe resting against the fallen log. Should you assume that the tree was chopped down, despite not having actual physical record of the chopping?

Studying abiogenesis relies a lot of inference, because time has destroyed most of the physical evidence. What is certain is that evolution happens among living things--we have direct evidence and observations of that. Where the first life came from is less certain, but the theory that it originated with progressively more complex self-replicating molecules is a compelling one.

 

A) You're arguing about abiogenesis, but that has little to do with evolution--which stands fine on its own even if you ignore the matter of where life came from.

B) What, exactly, separates "living chemicals" from "non-living chemicals"? The line is not so clear as you might think. At the most fundamental level, living things are made from the same elements that anything else is. All that differs is the organization.

 

Hey Dr Manhattan.

 

Researchers in abiogenesis have long understood the boundary between living and non-living to be essentially arbitrary.

 

It is a belief system... I will agree with you there....

 

You are using "theory" too losely. They are not theories, since they have not passed the scientific method....

The guesses are only hypothesis...

 

You are completely wrong here, demonstrating again your complete failure to comprehend the scientific meaning of "theory."

Why do you spend so much effort on a subject for which you demonstrate neither the capacity or the temperament to understand?

 

how life could emerged naturally from non living chemicals.

Uhhh... yea... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).


So... where is the experiment that provides this evidence of a theory? I mean - you do know what the meaning of "theory" is, so where is the link please...

 

You believe whatever you want to believe. But, like those who you do not like, do not force your opinion on what "is" right on other and tell them they are wrong. Ask "why" they believe, but say your an idiot for believing in that (unless they say that first)...

Listen to both sides and find out for yourself what YOU want to believe...

 

Already provided several times:

 

To be fair to DBM, he is actually correct regarding abiogenesis; we don't have a theory on the pre-biotic source of life yet, we just have hypotheses to work with at the moment (such as the iron-sulfur hypothesis he linked to, and the RNA world hypothesis I explained earlier). We don't have theoretical models to work with yet primarily as a result of not having enough lab space and difficulty in finding the evidence in primordial rocks. I'm confident we'll have a working theory in 50-100 years, but as of now, we're still stuck in hypotheses.

Not that that is a bad thing in any respect, as this is how science moves forward (form hypotheses based on limited data, test that data, retool hypotheses as necessary, form explanatory model, see if it works, if so, it's a theory). So, we're currently on the first step of working science on abiogenesis.

 

And the theory of relativity has no credible explanation for how matter arose.

 

Maybe there should be a abiogenesis thread instead of discussing it in evolution threads?

 

The theory of gravitation has no such explanation either.

 

Trouble is , no "dead " matter has ever been found .
Perhaps you would let us know when it is .

 

Not as long it's in the religion section; it's all the same to the creationist.