Why do people deny evolution?

How can scientists reach a conclusion, when a definitive, or even vague answer is a mystery that cannot be duplicated. The word faith is creeping into my mind, which is fine, but who or what are you putting your faith in cicerone?

Please show me how and why you know that genes had to mutate in sequence in both sexes simultaneously.

You are making unsubstantiated assumptions then saying something can't happen because of your original assumptions. Circular reasoning on your part doesn't prove anything other than you are using circular reasoning.

My faith is in EVOLUTION.

I thought both sexes have to be in the same place at the same time for heterosexual reproduction to work. So, if they came from the same asexual ancestor, don't they have to evolve approximately the same time so they can meet to procreate.

Have you heard of 'test tube' baby?

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

Funny. Even with Invitro the male and female have to exist at approximately the same time. Maybe working invitro into evolution might be helpful.

Not at all. There are many ways that it works. Look up how worms have sex.

Your argument continues to be circular. Stop using your conclusion to reach your conclusion. You ignore parthenogenesis and hermaphrodites as a way for species to procreate while they are evolving into 2 sexes that must meet to procreate.

I am not ignoring hermaphodites, or parthenogenesis. Do you want me to assume that complex opposite sex, multicellular animals were reproducuing using those processes as they evolved into animals with female and male sex organs and bodies? So, there should be evidence of generations of multicellular animals that reproduced asexually with partially formed sex organs, until their sex organs fully developed into the opposite sex, at which point they started reproducing heterosexually and then eventually, lost the ability to reproduce asexually. Or, if there is limited evidence you want me to assume that it happened with the evidence we have.

http://www.spermbankdirectory.com/frozen-sperm-efficacy
12 years.

Why are we talking about invitro?

Why did you bring in vitro up in the first place? We were talking about evolution.

Here's your problem--you're assuming that relatively large and complex animals evolved from an asexual state to a sexual state. Is this what the god bothers are teaching you now? That evolutionary biologists are making such a claim? Sexual reproduction appeared in early, single-cell eukaryotes more than a billion years ago. You might as well go back to your buffalo argument. This is a typical god botherer tactic, too--introduce as a straw man an impossible process or outcome, and then demand that people defend a position that no responsible evolutionary biologist ever advocated. Really, what twaddle.

Are you saying that through evolution, a single celled asexual reproducing animal evolved by random mutations and natural selection into a heterosexual multicellular animal with a huge number of transition animals along the way. This animal evolved into opposite sexes each reproducing asexually until they developed sex organs that allowed heterosexual reproduction. Then the asexual reproduction trait disappeared. Is that the theory of evolution.

Sounds crazy when you say it that way. Dress that up with a bunch of scientific terms and it sounds so much better.

Yup, that's what happened in a nut shell. It took millions of years, but evolution did its thing that resulted in what we now have. As part of the primate family, we've evolved pretty well until today. The idea that homo sapiens started with making fire until now when we can type away at our computer to communicate across this planet, and fly craft to mars is an amazing feat. We've come a long ways, baby, and the future is going to be even more amazing!

Hmm.. so let's see what other BS you want to introduce.

You asked how it could happen. I gave you possible scenarios. You respond by saying you don't see any evidence. Clearly you are not looking for answers. You are only looking for what supports your conclusions. You are only making a circular argument.

You continue to ignore the fact that penises are not required to have 2 sexes. Penises only happened to be the result of evolution. It wasn't required.

Yes, but opposite sexes with different sex organs are required for heterosexual reproduction. A penis isn't needed unless you have a vagina, then it is a requirement. How did the male version know to grow a penus at the same time the female was growing a vagina. There are some major changes in hardware needed here, not to mention the changes in behavior as heterosexual reproduction requires a totally different behavior than asexual. How did they reproduce while the different sex organs were evolving for each sex over millennium?