Why do people deny evolution?

But the facts are the facts. I will accept them. I just want a factual description of the process describing the evolution of heterosexual reproduction. We are not trying to convert an entire civilization here, just friendly inquiry.

The reason it's easy for most people of religion to believe in god is the simple fact that heterosexual reproduction is complex, and not answered easily.

"Sexual reproduction would never have begun to evolve, and would never have continued to evolve to become as sophisticated as it is today in many plants and animals, unless it offered a significant evolutionary advantage.

As to what this advantage might be, however, is still the subject of continuing debate in the scientific community. Theories about the evolution of sex have proven to be very difficult to test experimentally, and so the answer is still very much open to speculation."

Since heterosexual reproduction is not limited to humans, and includes plants and animals, evolution does have its proof for its survival.

It seems you are willing to reject everything.

It's the argument they always trot out, 'but I don't understand it.' Like that proves anything, well it does, but not what they think it does.

Given that sexual reproduction dates back to the eukaryotes, a billion or more years ago, comments about buffalo and other such animals with regard to gender are pretty much idiotic, and typical of holy rollers. They try always to make anything which does not have "god did it" for an explanation seem implausible.

I think there are as many religious fundamentalists as there are science fundamentalists in the context that they will accept ideas that seem plausible to them but are not yet proven...

Uh-huh . . . prove the existence of your "god," and then we can talk.

I'm actually surprised no one has come up with some theory about the emergence of sexual reproduction. I had not looked at that subject since the early 90's when there was very little beyond speculation. The reason it's surprising to me is that it would seem to be such a fundamental question.

Could it be that evolution advocates are still relying on the logic of: Since genetic diversity has survival benefits, it was inevitable that sex would arise ? If so, they once again have to admit that they have no clue.

Am I making them seem implausible, or is statistical analysis doing that? People smarter than me have published analysis of this. I am not looking for a god answer, I am looking for a plausible answer. If god or something else needs to be considered to make the math work so be it.
I brought up buffalo in response to cicerone's finches because, I agree with you, they don't belong in the discussion.

sorry about the misquote "implausible"

The word you wanted was analyses, which is the plural. What statistical analysis would that be? Are you ignoring the point i made about sexual reproduction arising in eukaryotes, or even proto-eukaryotes, more than a billion years ago? Please name those whose published statistical analyses have shown that not to be true.

The definition of 'sexual reproduction' is likely broader than the concept in the question that came up in this thread of how sexual reproduction came to be. Technically speaking, any reproduction that shares genetic material from more than one organism qualifies as sexual reproduction, and that includes the 'horizontal gene transfer' that presumably occurred in early life forms. That is technically sex, but not what we think of sex as today.

We see a lot of supposition in how sexual reproduction was assumed in single celled eukaryotes in the following description and it should be noted that how sexual reproduction and separate male and female organisms came to be is still an unsolved mystery.

How did simple single celled eukorytes evolve into complex male and female heterosexuals as I stated earlier? A eukorytes is a long way from a female carrying a live fetus in a womb and a male with a penis evolving simultaneously but seperately from a eukoryte.

Oh, you're penis obsessed. You didn't "state" anything of the kind--you raised a question. And a damned silly, tendentious and "god-did-it" friendly question it is. Here, enlighten yourself: Where do penises come from.. I have never been able to understand why religious fanatics are so obsessed with sex and genitalia.

You do realize there a number of organisms that carry male and female sex organs, don't you?

I asked about the evolution of heterosexual sex because, how two sexes evolved simultaneously by random mutations is a question that has to be answered for any theory to be valid. "It just did", isn't good enough. Why does a hard question make this such a contentious discussion?. I didn't say god did it, you did. Is that the only alternative you can offer. I can leave god out and say the stars lined up for a millennium and miraculous things happened in sequence, but that's not science. I am asking for a scientific answer describing the mechanism that caused the proper mutations to happen to the opposite sexes in sequence over a long period of time. I can't seem to find one. I thought people who believe a theory as near fact, would base that theory on a testable or observable mechanism.

For any theory to be valid? By random mutation? Those are classic examples of the straw man fallacy. "God did it" is not good enough.

You can't find one because you have blinded yourself.

You are assuming because there is an end result it must have been designed to get to that point. There is no reason that 2 sexes require a penis. That just happens to be the current result of mutation. It could as easily have been a proboscis on the female that sucked sperm out of a male. It could have been like flowers or worms where the male and female parts are both within the same organism. Look up earthworms and sex.

Evolution is testable and observable because we can see mutations occur in organisms. Those mutations over large populations and long periods of time lead to major changes when an environment changes to change survival patterns. Drug resistant bacteria are a perfect example of evolution in process.

You're on the right track. Most scientists who study reproduction have arrived at the same conclusion. That being said, no one has provided a definitive answer, because for most scientists, it's a mystery that cannot be duplicated.

Please just show me a process that can generate these complex opposite sex organisms, from a simple asexual organism. A lot of genes had to mutate in sequence in both sexes simultaneously. The number of mutations to get there for one sex is astronomical, but two did it simultaneously and maintained the changes of basically partially formed sexual organs over millennium until they both were functional. I've seen examples of simple changes but not complex. Even if we can't replicate a process, give me an imagined one that sounds plausible. I am not assuming it is designed. It looks that way, but that assumption could be wrong. It is easy to replicate "design", because we design complex things with our human intelligence all the time (just not multi-celled organisms from single-celled). How about a computer simulation of the changes and sequences needed in the genome, with a random generator that simulates this change into two opposite sex animals.