Why do people deny evolution?

@parados,

So, finally you recognize that there was engineering there to be reversed :-)

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Word games make you look even more like a fool. Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@parados,

Stick to something you know about - Name calling.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Saying you look like a fool isn't name calling. Saying you are a fool is name calling if you clearly aren't one. (Everyone can look like a fool at one point or another.)

Quote:

Stick to something you know about - Name calling.

This on the other hand is pretty close to name calling. You have clearly stated I don't know anything about other topics.

By the way, you still have not addressed the 4 specific points I laid out as to why your math was wrong. If you can't respond to my points, then who is it that doesn't understand the math involved?

0 Replies

People may allege some faults against Parados, but name-calling isn't one of them.

0 Replies

Not compared to some others...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

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.

I don't have an answer because I am only allowed to use forces I can observe and measure in nature. I think the problems that have to be overcome by natural selection of random mutations are insurmountable when it comes to the evolution of complex heterosexual reproduction in higher vertebrates. I don't think that parthenogenesis can overcome the complexity factor because it really only works in females.

Quote:

Parthenogenesis is most simply defined as reproduction without fertilization. More specifically, it occurs when a female gamete develops a new individual without being fertilized by a male gamete.

I don't see how the male version can go through the generations of asexual reproduction by parthenogenesis that are needed for complex sexual organs to develop. I also can't figure out how the complex organs for the female, developed to perfectly work with the male version, by random mutations and natural selection. How can natural selection select mutations over generations, that have no advantage until they meet up with a male in the future that can work with them?

Quote:

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 keep talking about primitive and simple sexual reproduction. Eventually we need a process to leap to the complex mammals. If evolution can do this, we should be able to follow the evolutionary tree backwards from something like a dog to its first asexually producing ancestor, and see what had to happen physically and genetically to all the generations in between. I don't care if we can't find a lot of evidence, because I don't expect the fossil record to be complete. We can fill the gaps in with what would be logical and scientifically sound, and assume we are close to right. I have tried to find published information on this and can't locate much. I am not trying to be coy or a smart ass, I would just like an answer with a lot more detail before I commit to evolution being anymore than an incomplete theory, that might end up being unworkable without a modification that will change its basic tenants of natural selection of random mutations. Is this a reasonable expectation?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

What higher vertebrates aren't heterosexual? Your argument really makes no sense. It's not like there were asexual monkeys or horses that over time became heterosexual. Sexuality started before vertebrates even existed.

The ancestors of mammals had penises and vaginas. What I can't figure out is why you think your version of history is anywhere close to accurate.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Yup, you're an anti-evolution holy roller. Bye.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

What I can't figure out is why you think your version of history is anywhere close to accurate.

What version? brianakub has clearly said he doesn't have one.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

The ancestors of mammals had penises and vaginas.

What were those ancestors that weren't mammals. Let's find when the first functional heterosexual organs evolved. Then, when the first womb evolved from an animal that couldn't carry a fetus, and from what animal did it evolve from. How did that womb and the other sex organs evolve. How did the male version evolve through all those steps at the same time. We keep jumping from things like earthworms, and lizards to mammals.

Quote:

What I can't figure out is why you think your version of history is anywhere close to accurate.

I don't think I provided a version of history, I am asking for a historical progression of the evolutionary process to get us from simple asexual reproduction to complex heterosexual reproduction in mammals. Especially The evolution of the male version from asexual to heterosexual.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

Setanta said

Quote:

Yup, you're an anti-evolution holy roller. Bye

Maybe this will answer Jimmy's question.

Quote:

Why do people deny evolution?

I am not a holy roller, I am a naturalist. If there is a god, he, she, or it has to communicate or reveal itself through nature because through my body is the only way I can communicate. If we can answer my questions with a progression of natural selection of random mutations without running into any serious complexity problems, then doubts or denials of the validity and completeness of the theory of evolution may fall by the wayside. Name calling won't do it. Offering up vague, simple answers without an explanation,for complex questions doesn't help either.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I don't think I provided a version of history,

Obviously, you haven't bothered to actually look at what we know of history. You have decided that your ignorance is a good as science.

Quote:

We keep jumping from things like earthworms, and lizards to mammals.

All of those share a common ancestor. Something you fail to comprehend. You might want to look up montremes. Then look up synapsids.

Here is one that will blow your mind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature-dependent_sex_determination

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

If we can answer my questions with a progression of natural selection of random mutations without running into any serious complexity problems, then doubts or denials of the validity and completeness of the theory of evolution may fall by the wayside.

Ah. That canard. If only we answer your question to your narrow requirements will you accept them. And then you will just move the goal posts at will because your mind is made up already.

You aren't looking for answers. You are looking to make sure you don't accept any answer.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Obviously, you haven't bothered to actually look at what we know of history. You have decided that your ignorance is a good as science.

I don't want to be ignorant, that is why I ask questions like, how did the male version of an asexual animal, go through the generations of asexual reproduction by parthenogenesis that are needed for complex sexual organs to develop when only females can reproduce asexually? I also can't figure out how the complex organs for the female, developed to perfectly work with the male version, by random mutations and natural selection. How can natural selection select mutations over generations, that have no advantage until they meet up with a male in the future that can work with them?

Quote:

Although biochemical and anatomical evidence suggests that the monotremes diverged from the mammalian lineage before the marsupials and placental mammals arose, only a handful of monotreme fossils are known from before the Miocene epoch. The known Mesozoic monotremes are Steropodon, Kollikodon, and Teinolophos, all from Australian deposits in the Cretaceous, suggesting monotremes had already diversified by that time.[3

It looks like monotremes were already heterosexual mammals. What is the last asexual animal that is an ancestor to mammals?

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Ah. That canard. If only we answer your question to your narrow requirements will you accept them. And then you will just move the goal posts at will because your mind is made up already.

You aren't looking for answers. You are looking to make sure you don't accept any answer.

Is it unreasonable to require the theory of evolution to provide a workable evolution from asexual reproduction in simple animals to complex heterosexual reproduction in complex vertebrates, especially the evolution of the male version of the first heterosexual species?

Try me. I will either agree with you, or ask you a question so I can better understand your answer.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

There are single cell sexual organisms.

You keep not understanding that. You have been told several times.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Is it unreasonable to expect you to understand the most basic things before you expect complicated answers?

Read this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

Quote:

Eukaryotes can reproduce both by asexual reproduction through mitosis and sexual reproduction through meiosis.

Until you understand it, your questions are nothing but you demanding we accept your ignorance as if it was something more than the complete and utter ignorance it is.

brianjakub wrote:

Is it unreasonable to require the theory of evolution to provide a workable evolution from asexual reproduction in simple animals

Your question starts with a false and ignorant premise. Fix it before you can even begin to find the answers you seek. Single cell organisms can use sexual reproduction.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

What is the last asexual animal that is an ancestor to mammals?

We would probably need to go back to the Precambrian for that. We could start by asking how Pikaia reproduced.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Is it unreasonable to require the theory of evolution to provide a workable evolution from asexual reproduction in simple animals to complex heterosexual reproduction in complex vertebrates, especially the evolution of the male version of the first heterosexual species?

Bear in mind that the nature of sexual reproduction really has everything to do with the exchange of genetic information and not with the development of organs for assisting the process. And as Parados has pointed out, all of the important drivers behind sexual evolution happened at cellular levels long before mammals arose.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know