Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[YoursTrue]

No, once again you demonstrate that you do not even understand the simplest of science. Please reread my post.

Unfortunately you do not understand what you and others are saying. Bye for now, take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortunately you do not understand what you and others are saying. Bye for now, take care.

Please, you are not fooling anyone. When you cannot understand the simplest of articles that is a very very bad sign.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, you are not fooling anyone. When you cannot understand the simplest of articles that is a very very bad sign.

Do you think telomeres happened after abiogenesis to shorten a lifespan by natural selection or maybe mutations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think telomeres happened after abiogenesis to shorten a lifespan by natural selection or maybe mutations?

Those formed long after abiogenesis.

Here is a mistake that creationists always make. They look at modern life, all of which has a 3.8 billion year history of evolution and think that the earliest life would be similar. It would not be anywhere near as complex. Complexity arose due to competition. When life first formed there was no competition. There was just an empty Earth with many areas where life could exist. All that was needed was a very simple cell that had no defenses. That used the absolute simplest, and probably least efficient ways to generate energy and self reproduce. That was all that was needed. Once the various niches filled then life would begin to compete and more efficient life would be more likely to succeed than less efficient life. That would have been the start of evolution.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So what deep significance do you attach to
this?
And do you have examples of " theorizing"
about things for which no relevant lab work has
been done or is even possible?

For me personally, the signifance would depend on what the particular topic is. I.e. the area under study. For example, I have a personal fascination with the research into how toxins evolved in Dendrobatidae / poisen dart frogs. One of the studies done on the topic titled, "The evolution of coloration and toxicity in the poison frog family (Dendrobatidae)" addresses elements of this topic. As they stated about their research:

These frogs generally have been considered to be aposematic, but relatively little research has been carried out to test the predictions of this hypothesis.​

​

So, according to this study, prior to their work relatively little research had been carried out to test the predictions of this hypothesis. They further stated,

Here we use a comparative approach to test one prediction of the hypothesis of aposematism: that coloration will evolve in tandem with toxicity. Recently, we developed a phylogenetic hypothesis of the evolutionary relationships among representative species of poison frogs, using sequences from three regions of mitochondrial DNA. In our analysis, we use that DNA-based phylogeny and comparative analysis of independent contrasts to investigate the correlation between coloration and toxicity in the poison frog family (Dendrobatidae).​

​

After performing thier study, they were clear about what was apprent in thier findings and what shortcomings existed. I.e. areas for further study.

There was a significant association between the evolution of coloration (as rated by human observers) and the evolution of overall toxicity (as quantified by toxin diversity, quantity, and lethality)..............The evolution of aposematism has received extensive attention in the literature. However, few comparative analyses controlling for phylogenetic effects have been carried out to test a basic prediction of the theory of aposematism, that more toxic species will advertise their toxicity more conspicuously, with brighter, more extensive coloration. The poison frogs provide a good opportunity to test this prediction because of the wide variation in coloration and toxicity within this family. Our phylogenetic analysis provides information on evolutionary relationships that is crucial for comparative analysis. The measures of both toxicity and coloration used in this study were fairly crude. Despite this lack of precision, which could obscure any relationship between these two variables, variation in toxicity explained a significant amount of variation in coloration under each combination of measurement technique and model of evolutionary change. It is certainly possible that other selective factors have influenced the evolution of coloration in these frogs. Nevertheless, our results suggest a substantial role for toxicity in the evolution of bright coloration in the poison frogs.​

​

This is one example of what I mean. This study was from 2001, but at a certain point, testing of this nature was limited or had not yet been performed. This study presents some level of study, like others, with the need to perform additional work.

Just, to be clear. What I wrote Post 39 has to be taken in its entirity. I am open to the fact that all of this depends on what the particular area of study is even under consideration.

 

[YoursTrue]

Those formed long after abiogenesis.

Here is a mistake that creationists always make. They look at modern life, all of which has a 3.8 billion year history of evolution and think that the earliest life would be similar. It would not be anywhere near as complex. Complexity arose due to competition. When life first formed there was no competition. There was just an empty Earth with many areas where life could exist. All that was needed was a very simple cell that had no defenses. That used the absolute simplest, and probably least efficient ways to generate energy and self reproduce. That was all that was needed. Once the various niches filled then life would begin to compete and more efficient life would be more likely to succeed than less efficient life. That would have been the start of evolution.

If I believed in your concept of abiogenesis I'd agree with your first statement there. (But I don't.)
You are blending me with your vast concept of creationists so can't answer your claims.

 

[anotherneil]

Neither good nor valid.

Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I believed in your concept of abiogenesis I'd agree with your first statement there. (But I don't.)
You are blending me with your vast concept of creationists so can't answer your claims.

Your own arguments refute this claim of yours. As to your question about telomeres you would have found that they most likely arose over a billion years after abiogenesis. Archaea are thought to be the organisms that engulfed a bacterium and eventually formed a symbiotic relationship with that bacteria and thus became eukaryotes. The DNA in the mitochondria do not have telomeres. That is found in the chromosomes. And archaea do not have telomeres either. so that feature had to evolve after the symbiosis.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

I have noticed a certain pattern in history. Now, I may be wrong about this, but it's something I have rolling around in my head. My thoughts aren't really complete, and I suspect I'm going to do a horrible job trying to explain. But here goes.

Human beings need to feel we are special. We are the center of our own world, and we have the need to feel that we are the center of THE world. It seems that we really are NOT the center of the universe. It seems like everytime science diminishes our significance, we tend to hit back, using religion as a convenient club.

We live on a little planet, one of many orbiting our star. Even our star is not the center. It's one of uncountable many stars orbiting the center of our galaxy, out on some remote outer arm. Nor is our galaxy the center of our universe, but only one of uncountable galaxies. Accepting this has been a big adjustment for us. It was just so much easier when we thought the sun orbited the earth.

It's the same thing with our relationship with the other animals. We don't want to feel we are just one among many. We want to see ourselves as special, separate, unique. The thought that we might have a common ancestor with pond scum is just really really difficult for us to swallow. We have fought that knowledge tooth and nail, from denying other animals have similar consciousness, to denying the validity of their feelings, to even denying they suffer. And of course there is the old, "Humans have an immortal soul, and animals don't." Some people and some cultures are more extreme about this than others. But all human beings want to feel we are unique.

Why? Because being unique, and being at the center, is connected in our emotions to us mattering. We hit back at science because it makes us feel small, insignificant, maybe even worthless.

I guess what I'm saying is that the religious issues are just a screen to shield us from the real motivations.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I guess what I'm saying is that the religious issues are just a screen to shield us from the real motivations.

That same can be found I suspect in philosophy and appears to connect to rational and related words.

 

[anotherneil]

I have noticed a certain pattern in history. Now, I may be wrong about this, but it's something I have rolling around in my head. My thoughts aren't really complete, and I suspect I'm going to do a horrible job trying to explain. But here goes.

Human beings need to feel we are special. We are the center of our own world, and we have the need to feel that we are the center of THE world. It seems that we really are NOT the center of the universe. It seems like everytime science diminishes our significance, we tend to hit back, using religion as a convenient club.

We live on a little planet, one of many orbiting our star. Even our star is not the center. It's one of uncountable many stars orbiting the center of our galaxy, out on some remote outer arm. Nor is our galaxy the center of our universe, but only one of uncountable galaxies. Accepting this has been a big adjustment for us. It was just so much easier when we thought the sun orbited the earth.

It's the same thing with our relationship with the other animals. We don't want to feel we are just one among many. We want to see ourselves as special, separate, unique. The thought that we might have a common ancestor with pond scum is just really really difficult for us to swallow. We have fought that knowledge tooth and nail, from denying other animals have similar consciousness, to denying the validity of their feelings, to even denying they suffer. And of course there is the old, "Humans have an immortal soul, and animals don't." Some people and some cultures are more extreme about this than others. But all human beings want to feel we are unique.

Why? Because being unique, and being at the center, is connected in our emotions to us mattering. We hit back at science because it makes us feel small, insignificant, maybe even worthless.

I guess what I'm saying is that the religious issues are just a screen to shield us from the real motivations.

Pond scum - I like that; we're all pond scum & I have a feeling we can all agree on that. LOL

 

[YoursTrue]

Your own arguments refute this claim of yours. As to your question about telomeres you would have found that they most likely arose over a billion years after abiogenesis. Archaea are thought to be the organisms that engulfed a bacterium and eventually formed a symbiotic relationship with that bacteria and thus became eukaryotes. The DNA in the mitochondria do not have telomeres. That is found in the chromosomes. And archaea do not have telomeres either. so that feature had to evolve after the symbiosis.

telomeres "likely arose" over a billion years after abiogenesis? what a laugh. likely arose, I love it. Here is a scientific description of telomere, unlike what you said and insist upon (try again) -- "Telomeres are protein structures located at the ends of each eukaryotic DNA chromosomal arm." Sad to say, you make yourself look silly and sad. Hope things get better for you. Bye again. Biochemistry, Telomere And Telomerase - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Pond scum - I like that; we're all pond scum & I have a feeling we can all agree on that. LOL

I love saying "pond scum" because when I was in high school, we would jokingly insult each other by saying they were pond scum. And of course, the most ancient life we know of was single celled organisms in water, aka pond scum.

 

[Audie]

Why?

Think a bit.

But for one, rejecting an idea one knows
nothing about has to be about the height of
stupidity.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is incorrect. The elements that they used were ones that were found on the Early Earth in the Miller-Urey experiment. When there were doubts about the atmosphere that was used they replicated other possibilities and still got amino acids. Plus we have found amino acids in meteorites since then and even more important in what is now thought to be the most likely environment it can be shown that amino acids naturally form today. All of this has been pointed out to you with sources many times. How can you repeatedly forget this?

Nonsense. The elements were put together in testtubes by scientists. They had to be catalyzed by electric. Back to a fuzzy, soupy messy mass. Take care.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

telomeres "likely arose" over a billion years after abiogenesis? what a laugh. likely arose, I love it. Here is a scientific description of telomere, unlike what you said and insist upon (try again) -- "Telomeres are protein structures located at the ends of each eukaryotic DNA chromosomal arm." Sad to say, you make yourself look silly and sad. Hope things get better for you. Bye again. Biochemistry, Telomere And Telomerase - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf.

You use a double standard of denying the past can be known, yet claimimg you can do it.

 

[I Am Hugh]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

I rejected evolution long before becoming a believer, for the same reason I rejected religion. It's stupid. Any of the reasons that are given for rejecting religion are basically the same.

 

[Audie]

I rejected evolution long before becoming a believer, for the same reason I rejected religion. It's stupid. Any of the reasons that are given for rejecting religion are basically the same.

You're like sure that its all them scientists who
are stupid.

 

[I Am Hugh]

You're like sure that its all them scientists who
are stupid.

Not like sure, pretty sure, and not the scientists who claim Darwinian Evolution, the Darwinian Evolution itself, much the same as I'm pretty sure all the religion rather than the religious are stupid and the atheism rather than the atheists are stupid.

 

[Yerda]

telomeres "likely arose" over a billion years after abiogenesis? what a laugh. likely arose, I love it. Here is a scientific description of telomere, unlike what you said and insist upon (try again) -- "Telomeres are protein structures located at the ends of each eukaryotic DNA chromosomal arm." Sad to say, you make yourself look silly and sad. Hope things get better for you. Bye again. Biochemistry, Telomere And Telomerase - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf.

Hi, @YoursTrue.

By our best understanding, eukaryotes didn't exist until quite some time after life arose. Current estimates put the origin of life somwhere between 4.1 and 3.5 billion years ago. Eukaryotic cells didn't appear until around 2.2 billion years ago.