Why do people deny evolution?

Random mutation is survival. In that respect, it's intelligent.

The Web link you gave me doesn't answer my question how did male and females of a specites reproduce while their sex organs evolved, and then what made them mate one day.

Survivability through random mutations is not intelligence. It is luck, like winning at Russian roulette.

Here's the best answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

From CI's 'answer'.



These hypothesizes always boil down to - ' Since this was a good way to explain what happened, it had to have happened that way.'

This is no better than a fundamentalist saying 'Since the bible said God created things male and female, that is why there are two sexes.'

It proves nothing and does not answer the question that was posed.

There are creatures that can produce either sexually or asexually.

Look up parthenogenesis.

If you have a better explanation, let's hear it.

Please show us one instance of science saying this statement. The thing about science is it is never absolute. You have created a strawman to argue against.

You are so easy.

The most obvious one is science's assumption of no 'supernatural' causes. Science says that if it happened, it had a natural cause, even if it does not currently know what that natural cause is.

A concrete example is the first self replicating molecule capable of evolving. We have no idea what it was, but science assumes it had to exist.

So you assume an intelligence at the outset? Survivability, as you call it, is affected by many factors. Reproductive viability and success are the mechanisms of natural selection, not mere survival. The individual which survives is fit, but if that individual does not successfully reproduce, then nothing of their genome survives.

Certain factors change, and therefore plants and animals change in response, and that's not "random mutations." Traits which reinforced or enhanced reproductive success during the so-called ice age became liabilities when the ice caps retreated as the climate warmed. The ability to exploit a food source is only an advantage as long as the food source is present.

You don't really understand reproductive biology, you just want to bang on your holy roller drum. That always involves a host of bullshit assumptions and mythical straw man claims.

An assumption is now a conclusion?

But since you want to suppose a supernatural cause it is up to you to provide evidence of this supernatural cause. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to do so.

That should have been my line. Evolution advocates tend to leave no room around that assumption so it does seem to be a forgone conclusion, despite the lack of evidence.

Extreme amounts of order implies intelligence. Cicerone said survivability is intelligence, I was replying to that. If plants and animals change in response, how are they responding so perfectly? How did an animal that was reproducing exclusively asexually, evolve into two separate sexes? How did they reproduce while one sex was evolving ovaries, eggs, fallopian tubes, a womb, a cervix, a birth canal, a vagina, a placenta, a monthly cycle, and the process of birth, and the other sex was evolving testicles, sperm, a penis, and the ability to get an erection? How would all those unneeded organs evolve in separate sexes of the same species over millenia by random mutations just waiting for the day when they can evole enough to discover copulation. And then the egg and sperm figure out how to unite and implant in a (until then) useless uterine wall.
I think it took more than a natural response to the enviroment for that to happen. And what traits were being reinforced and enhanced over the millenia that the sexual organs of each sex were evolving but we're basically useless?

Darwin's finches.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_02.html

Nonsense--apart from being an ipse dixit claim on your part, it is highly ambiguous as regards definitions--what constitutes "extreme?" How does one quantify order, especially from one organism to another? You're whistling past the graveyard.

A finch is a finch. A buffalo an Angus and a Holstein can interbreed, but women are from Venus and men are from mars. The opposite sexes almost evolved as two separate species to develop heterosexual reproduction from asexual.

Assuming that because there is no evidence of supernatural so therefor it is assumed that everything that happens has a natural cause isn't an absolute. It leaves the door open for your evidence of the supernatural that can be shown to exist. Let us know when you have some.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

Maybe extreme amount of order is a poor choice of words, but we can calculate the chances of the sequence of gene mutations that had to happen in order for the opposite sexes to evolve separately but simultaneously. Plus the processes and behaviors that must be considered with heterosexual reproduction verses asexual. I can't find a journal documenting a plausible natural process explaning how this happened through Darwinian evolution, or punctuated equilibrium. Could some one point it out? I read Gould. I've seen people calculate the odds of some portion of evolution happening, but not the simultaneous evolution of the sexes.

Parthenogenesis only produces females or non viable organisms. Where are the males? Is that whip tail the ancestor of all heterosexual reproduction? You gave me an example of an animal with unusual reproductive capabilities. I was interested in the process which describes how all the proper genetic mutations happened, and also happened in sequence and simultaneously in the opposite sexes producing heterosexual reproduction. Can it plausibly be explained by random mutations?

People deny whatever they want when their particular culture and group of reference is under attack by exterior forces. The bounding glue of social productivity is totally dependent on group adaptation techniques and ways of coping with specific environmental conditions. The means of group adaptation generate cultural specificity which is overall more important to group and individual survival then the specific advances on scientific progression on the short term. Some truths require a slow "digestive" process before they can be culturally assimilated. In sum peoples reaction is natural and wise even when in the face of scientific facts. Such scientific progress while of extreme importance for long term survival can be on the short term a "killer" remedy an overdose of information that will dissolve the social cohesion and specific means of adaptation developed along the centuries.
Social cultural evolution cannot and should not be the result of brute force scientific feedback.
Civilized cultures have the natural social intuition to give these groups their natural adaptation time and act tolerant instead of destroying whatever level of productivity they have to offer to society by destroying their culture.