Why do people deny evolution?

@brianjakub,

The world of plant and animals have the same evolutionary development.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

No, i'm not saying that. You're saying something which sounds implausible because you want to introduce your "god did it" thesis. I said nothing about random mutations nor about natural selection, a process which you clearly don't understand. Some eukaryotes developed the ability to reproduce sexually, as well as asexually and by parthenogenesis. You are a eukaryote, i am a eukaryote--it is not determined by the means of reproduction, but by having organelles in the cells enclosed in a membrane. To this day, there are eukaryotes which can reproduce asexually, by parthenogenesis and sexually. Parados has mentioned worms several times. You ignore that, because it's not convenient to your attempt to ridicule evolution so that you can substitute your silly god did it superstition. Natural selection comes in when sexual reproduction confers a reproductive advantage. Eventually, plants and animals evolved which reproduced only sexually. Others continued to be able to reproduce asexually and sexually. Basically, our problem here is that you don't understand either reproductive biology or evolutionary biology. You don't want to understand them, because you just want to say "god did it." You're ignorant, stubborn, and, frankly, you're a bore.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I am not saying god did it. I know what worms can do. I want to talk about complex reproduction. How did we get to mammals from whatever? Are worms even in our evolutionary branch.
A penis isn't needed unless you have a vagina, then it is a requirement. Worms don't have penises or vaginas or ovaries or all the other sex organs necessary for complex heterosexual reproduction. How did the advantage in natural selection of a vagina and a penis get carried on in two separate sexes? How did the male version know to grow a penis 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?
Just because worms and salamanders can do some neat things doesn't explain how we got to mammals reproducing heterosexually.

0 Replies

You are clearly hostile to the idea of evolution.

This post is an example of your attitude:

brianjakub wrote:

Notice how there are no logical replies to gungasnake. Maybe he has the evolutionists stumped. Or, maybe I just need more faith in darwin.

Since you have arrived here, your rather obvious goal is to deride evolution, to make snide comments about Charles Darwin, and to suggest that if no one can explain absolutely everything about the evolutionary process to you, it must not be true. People who use terms such as evolutionists (as though it were a political position) and "faith in darwin [sic]" are tipping their hands.

The only people i know who act like that are holy rollers. I'd say you're just not honest enough to acknowledge that. So Mr Loaded Questions, i've got a simple question for you. How do you think sexual reproduction arose?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Even many holy rollers believe in evolution. It's very easy to find how evolution worked on the internet, including how homo sapiens evolved. People who rely on the bible and creationism will be blind to evolutionary theory. Or they'll rationalize how creationism includes evolution.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

How did the male version know to grow a penus at the same time the female was growing a vagina.

Nobody had to know to grow anything. This is all about survival.

Quote:

How did they reproduce while the different sex organs were evolving for each sex over millennium?

You keep repeating the same circular argument. The final production of the penis and vagina doesn't mean they had to have that from the beginning. It developed over time. This has been explained to you again and again and again and you seem to be unable to do anything but argue your conclusion as the beginning.

Quote:

not to mention the changes in behavior as heterosexual reproduction requires a totally different behavior than asexual.

Do you know how worms reproduce?

0 Replies

Quote:

your rather obvious goal is to deride evolution, to make snide comments about Charles Darwin,

How DARE you to question our holy creed!
And then you blaspheme our sacred leader Charles Darwin in whom there is no error!

This is NOT permitted! We shall banish you from our land and stamp out every trace of your lies with the light of our TRUTH!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

brianjakub wrote:
Notice how there are no logical replies to gungasnake. Maybe he has the evolutionists stumped. Or, maybe I just need more faith in darwin.

Since you have arrived here, your rather obvious goal is to deride evolution, to make snide comments about Charles Darwin, and to suggest that if no one can explain absolutely everything about the evolutionary process to you, it must not be true. People who use terms such as evolutionists (as though it were a political position) and "faith in darwin [sic]" are tipping their hands.

My goal is to get an answer that is understandable and logical to the question, "How did the advantage in natural selection of a vagina and a penis to perform reproduction, get carried on in two separate sexes? How come the male version grew a penis at the same time the female was growing a vagina when neither gave a survival advantage until both were fully developed? 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?"
Worms and salamanders can do some neat things, but, that doesn't explain a mechanism that could make the exact changes to the DNA in a simple animal without complex sex organs like a worm, to the an opposite sexes animal with complex sex organs like a dog.

Quote:

The only people i know who act like that are holy rollers. I'd say you're just not honest enough to acknowledge that. So Mr Loaded Questions, I've got a simple question for you. How do you think sexual reproduction arose?

I have not offered any other alternative theory, so why do assume that I am a holy roller? This thread isn't about alternative theories. I am asking a hard question, not a loaded question. Don't you think it should be answered by scientists, or anybody else promoting evolutionary theory as a near fact?

Jimmy J started this thread asking WHY DO PEOPLE DENY EVOLUTION?
with the following qualification:

Quote:

Before you even try please note that this question is not to debate the validity of evolution. Regardless of whether or not you want to believe in it it's pretty much been solidified by hundreds of years of scientific research and evidence. It's basically impossible to teach Biology without it.

I DO want to hear from people who don't "believe" in it, though. I want to know what your reasoning is. The evidence pretty much speaks for itself, so why do you deny it?

Maybe Jimmy's assumption that, "the evidence speaks for itself" is presumptuous? There is either a lack of education, or a lack of evidence, or the evidence would speak for itself. How can we educate and discover without debate in a forum like this? If the evidence speaks for itself, let's quit calling people holy rollers. Instead, let's talk about the evidence explaining the process of the evolution of the worm, to a complex heterosexual mammal. The problem is, I can't find a rigorous scientific debate on ideas about this question, and I assume other people can't either. Maybe that is why some people deny evolution. It seems to have a big hole. Why don't we fill that hole right now? Would you or Jimmy or anyone else be patient with me and all other info seekers, and point us to some links or books that fill this hole, and then explain how that information helped you to your conclusion. If people come and discuss these issues, "like how earthworm reproduction answers my question on the evolution from asexual reproduction to complex heterosexual reproduction.", we will find out why people deny evolution, or we will educate them and they will quit denying it.

1 Reply

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/sexual-reproduction-and-the-evolution-of-sex-824

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/sexual-reproduction-and-the-evolution-of-sex-824

This link only explains why sex is important, and this comment on when sex evolves.

Quote:

Sex Evolves When Selection Changes Over Time
Current models indicate that sex evolves more readily when a species' environment changes rapidly. When the genetic associations built up by past selection are no longer favorable, sex and recombination can improve the fitness of offspring, thereby turning the recombination load into an advantage. One important source of environmental change is a shift in the community of interacting species, especially host and parasite species. This is the so-called "Red Queen" hypothesis for the evolution of sex, which refers to the need for a species to evolve as fast as it can just to keep apace of coevolving species. (The name of this hypothesis comes from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, in which Alice must run as fast as she can "just to stay in place.") Increased allocation to sexual reproduction can evolve because of "Red Queen" interactions, but only if selection is strong enough to cause rapid switches in which gene combinations are favorable.

Sex Evolves When Selection Changes Over Space
Sex can also be favored when selection varies over space, as long as the genetic associations created by migration are locally disadvantageous. Whether this requirement is common in nature remains an open question.

Sex Evolves When Organisms Are Less Adapted to Their Environment
Organisms that reproduce both sexually and asexually tend to switch to sex under stressful conditions. Mathematical models have revealed that it is much easier for sex to evolve if individuals that are adapted to their environment reproduce asexually and less fit individuals reproduce sexually. In this way, well-adapted genotypes are not broken apart by recombination, but poorly adapted genotypes can be recombined to create new combinations in offspring.

Sex Evolves When Populations Are Finite
Models that account for the fact that population sizes are finite have found that sex and recombination evolve much more readily. With a limited number of individuals in a population, selection erodes easily accessible variation, leaving only hidden variation (Figure 2). Recombination can then reveal this hidden variation, improving the response to selection. By improving the response to selection, genes that increase the frequency of sex become associated with fitter genotypes, which rise in frequency alongside them. Interestingly, the requirement that fitness surfaces exhibit weak and negative curvature is relaxed in populations of finite size; here, fitness surfaces may be uncurved or positively curved and still favor sex.

I don't see any discussion on my question "How did the advantage in natural selection of a vagina and a penis to perform reproduction, get carried on in two separate sexes? How come the male version grew a penis at the same time the female was growing a vagina when neither gave a survival advantage until both were fully developed? 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?"
Can you explain how this link answers my question?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You probably didn't read it yourself but Your link sums it up this way:

Quote:

it suggests that August Weismann might have been right all along in arguing that sex evolved to generate variation.

Once again, the explanation is 'because evolution requires it'. It's a 'just so' story. Evolution has no 'need' to exist, no plans to survive so this explanation is just another version of 'It had to have happened that way because it did'.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

'It had to have happened that way because it did'.

No. Actually, it happened that way because it happened that way. It could have happened a million other different ways but this is the result that did happen. Evolution didn't require it. Evolution just let it happen and found it was the best way of the solutions that showed up.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Evolution just let it happen and found it was the best way

Evolution has no conception of 'best' . Evolution will accept anything that works. Bacteria have found asexual reproduction perfectly adequate.

You gonna tell me bacteria wanted something better?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

I notice that you have not answered the question of how you think it happened. I notice that you continue to be obsessed with penises and vaginas. You say you are just looking for an answer, and yet when people propose to you an evolutionary solution, you argue against it, ignore evidence such as parthenogenesis, asexual and sexual reproduction in some individuals. You continue to ignore that both plants and animals which practice sexual reproduction can have evolved from earlier forms--and just babble on about penises and vaginas. You have elsewhere, as i have shown, spoken of evolutionists and faith in Darwin--both of these code phrases of the religious anti-evolution movement. Why should anyone think anything else but that you are such a religious person?

You expect people of answer you questions, apparently endlessly, while you sta te or imply that their answers are not plausible. Why don't you answer a question for a change? If sexual reproduction did not evolve, how do you propose it took place? If you have no answer, if you either ignore the question or act coy about it, i have no choice but to continue to consider you to be fundamentally dishonest, and very likely a religious denier of evolution.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

"Best" in the fashion of it works at all or is the one that survives to take over a population. In evolution, "best" is the result that survives. There is no intelligence wanting it to be better.

Quote:

You gonna tell me bacteria wanted something better?

I don't think I equated bacteria with evolution. Perhaps you should read my sentence again. It is pretty clear that nowhere in that sentence does it say bacteria wanted something better.

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

Interesting answers. I like to think that there are several theories. And one of them is about evolution. In biology class alternative theories are discussed? I do not mean the religious stories. )

1 Reply

@ilikeyou,

Quote:

In biology class alternative theories are discussed?

Only to the extent of how unguided evolution happened. Any discussion of anything else is automatically filed as 'religion' and banned by separation of church and state. In private or corporate life, the banning is by more subtle means. You generally can't be considered a serious intellectual if you do not subscribe to the accepted Evolution theory. In the corporate realm, you would have no hope of research grants if you look outside of evolution.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

It's funny isn't it? Money tends to support those that get results. Results tend to occur more often with those that are better informed.

Can you figure out why corporations support those that accept evolution theory?

1 Reply

@parados,

Your view rests on the mistaken idea that the science of Biology depends on or is inextricably linked to evolution theory. This is a complete myth.

Other than projects that have evolution as the central aim, Biological research approaches problems and goals as reverse engineering. It would not matter whether evolution were fact or fiction.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Other than projects that have evolution as the central aim, Biological research approaches problems and goals as reverse engineering. It would not matter whether evolution were fact or fiction.

Therein lies your problem. You don't seem to understand reverse engineering. It is much easier to reverse engineer something when you know more about how it came to be.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know