Why do people deny evolution?

I don't need to do "all that" extra reading. I read enough science stuff to satisfy my own impressions about different matters. We also have farmerman who is knowledgeable about geology who taught graduate level classes and owned a consulting firm, and I trust his skills on that subject. I support almost 100% of his presentations on a2k. I don't need any more support than that!

These people come in here with half a notion and demand what they could read up on for themselves, instead of asking others to do their research for them.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land/ ... 4 years ago scientist in poland discovered footprints of an 8 foot tetrapod dated to 395mya. So why do you believe a fish dated to 375mya to be a tetrapod anscestor. Just because something doesnt fit in your beliefs is no reason to ignore science. "open inquisitive mind", yes I have an open mind by definition, I actually have no belief system, you on the other hand seem to have made up your mind. I will easily admit that some species show a "staircase" feature. But will you admit there is no transitional fossil between 2 known species? Even though evolution is not a straight line you do believe their are thousands of species between known species. Does it not bother you that 99% of species that evolution predicts don't show in 99% of the fossil record? 100 years ago every scientist was sure that newtons law of gravity was infalible- that objects with mass attracted other objects with mass. Unfortunately for them albert einstein proved them wrong. It is amazing that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves yet wiser men so full of doubt.

You think you're so smart, you have all the knowledge there is to know about tetrapods. The following is from UC Berkeley, one of the premier universities in the world. Your genius is only on the insults about people you don't know, and nothing else!

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04

I actually do not think i am smart, i think if i read everyday till i die i would have learned maybe 1% of mans collective comprehesion. It is a humbling thought. I am not sure who i insulted, I apologize if i insulted you. If you are refering to the fools and fanatics quote, it is from bertrand russell. I was not calling you either. I would hope all scientist have doubts.

     Knowing and believing are very different things. Actually all of our knowledge is a set of beliefs - that our understanding of the world is true and correct and comprises valid representation ... to the best of our knowledge and skills ... which makes tautology in the end. Believing without verifying is simple beliefs - they may be presented as knowledge, but remain pure beliefs and nothing else.
     ... what do you accept as proof and what do you mean by exists - it may exist only as an experience or set of beliefs in our mind - as phenomenology - and outside that to be unknowable. You cannot stop asking like a broken record one and the same question - why don't you change the record? How was there the Japanese proverb - Return to arrive. BTW proving non-existence of God does not prove automatically the validity of the Big Bang theory.
     So, where is your proof that the Big Bang has ever existed ... and has launched the evolution of the stars. The 'existence' of the Big Bang is constrained exclusively to the red shift in the light spectrum and nothing else in the physical world. All the other things about Big Bang, creation, expansion of the universe, evolution of the stars, etc. are nothing more but virtual beliefs - none of them has any physical interpretation, none of them has ever been detected by any tools (except for the red shift in the light spectrum). Haven't you paid attention that if all these events are supposed to be omnipresent there must be various evidences for their existence ... of any kind and everywhere.
      1. Nobody has ever offered billion dollars for that, and 2. It doesn't matter whether it is a billion or a trillion - if something is unknowable, it is unknowable ... unless you find exactly where the gaps of the missing information 'are situated', and how big they might be, and find out some ways to bridge the gaps ... without even knowing whether the road will take you to the answers ... or to some other questions.

I did say that it was "grist for the mill".

You response doesn't cover mammals, reptiles, birds, or even many arthropods, who rely solely on reproductive activity of a couple, being one male, and one female.

You're looking for the evolutionary origins of sexual dimporphism, I think:

http://www3.amherst.edu/~ejtemeles/Hedrick%20and%20Temeles%201989%20TREE.pdf

That study doesn't cover the origins of sexuality at all; its focus is upon established male/female mating habits, and differing male/female traits and preferences for the mating process.

Just a plea to whoever is downvoting posts here; if you don't like what is being said, then contribute some content, or just an opinion, please.

I'll be upvoting every zero or minus comment I see, regardless of whether I believe the content or not.

Thankyou in advance for not screwing with people's free speech on this forum.

I think you're right. I was posting during a break between classes. I'll give it more attention when I get home shortly.

Thanks. It's a great topic for discussion, and one that has brought a lot of attention and focus.

Good for the board in general.

Couldn't have said it better!

Before I dig into it deeper, are we talking about the origins of dimporphic sex organs in the fossil record, or trying to explain why sexual reproduction evolved in the first place? The former is relatively straightforward, but the latter is subject to some amount of speculation. 'Why' questions are for theorists; 'when' questions are for the hands-on guys.

the evolution of sexual reproduction is the story ofMEISOSIS v MITOSIS, Ive got a really good wuick summary from the bio dept at TOWSON STATE COLLEGE. (Its one of the instructors blogspots). It deals with costs v benefits and spends just a wee bit of time on the oncept of meiosis (you can look that up in Wiki)
.
The benefits of sex reproduction is "Shuffling" the offsprings genetic makeup and it substantially reinforced the heritability and variability of traits.
If all we ever did was split or be parthenogenetic, wed all sorta be sisters and brothers (Actually wed have no concept of"Sex")

http://pages.towson.edu/scully/sex.html

If we'd multiply by mitosis, we would all be clones, not brothers and sisters but identical twins.

The problem with these discussions is that e seem to descend into name calling at first chance. As the discovery of a "fishopod" was not fully vetted as of this date, I, like Dasechler would say, lets determine whether these are even footprints.
Assume they are real, do they refute evolution? or merely push back the dates of the transitional forms?

Its still middle DEVONIN, and fits most all of the time "windows" of appearnaces of transitional forms. 20 million years for a Eusthonopteron may be a good window.
As we learn more and more, EVOLUTION WAS NEVER EVER CONSIDERED TO BE A STRAIT LINE BETWEEN FORMS.
So, instead of looking in the EMsian period we may need to go back to the Pragian.
All big fossil finds are based on educated guesses and tests of falsifiability (helped with a bunch of luck)

What you start and continue in he first place!! Look at your postings!!!!

this one's pretty interesting and pleasing:)

http://www.statista.com/statistics/297184/united-states-religious-symbol-theories-myths-belief/

That shows how easy is to manipulate people through faulty generalization..