Why do people deny evolution?

@brianjakub,

Quote:

heterosexual reproduction

I don't want to nitpick, but sexual reproduction is the term. Since there's no such thing as homosexual reproduction, the prefix "hetero" goes without saying.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I don't want to nitpick, but sexual reproduction is the term. Since there's no such thing as homosexual reproduction, the prefix "hetero" goes without saying.

thanks

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

I don't understand why you keep asking this. It's like asking me why a rock rolled down a hill, and whey I say "Gravity" you ask which "way" did it roll down the hill and did it bounce off any other rocks on the way down. What does it matter, it rolled down the hill due to gravity, and sexual dimorphism evolved through Natural Selection. What bit of detail are you actually looking for here, or what are you implying?

Evolution from simplicity to complexity is as simple as a rock rolling down hill? I think to make this analogy comparable the rock would have to gain complexity by the time it reached the bottom of the hill. Now I agree the energy added by the acceleration of gravity could polish it into a gem. Are you implying if we drop it enough times and with enough other boulders it will eventually turn into a tennis bracelet and earings. The rock is loosing complexity. That would be more like a simple organism evolving to something simpler, or just dying.

Quote:

It's not accurate to think of morphological changes as being "partially" developed because there is no targeted goal. Each stage is completely developed and fully functional even though it may not be as efficient as later changes may be.

Is there a point in the evolution from asexual to sexual reproduction, where the partially evolved male genitalia is useless for sexual reproduction, and thus not providing an evolutionary advantage over the previous generation? But, now it is evolving differently than the female. It is evolving to eventually produce sperm. If the evolving male version is not complete enough to exchange its sperm with a female, did it reproduce asexually? I didn't think males could reproduce asexually. Or, did the male have both eggs and sperm as it was evolving and then loose the eggs after it evolved enough to perform sexually? How do we get from worms that don't produce eggs or sperm, are all the same sex, and just rub to perform primitive sexual reproduction, to worms with partially formed, but opposite sex organs that keep evolving separately until both sets of organs are useful? If they are useful partially formed and gave an advantage what was it?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Is there a point in the evolution from asexual to sexual reproduction, where the partially evolved male genitalia is useless for sexual reproduction, and thus not providing an evolutionary advantage over the previous generation?

No.

Apparently I need to repeat the fact that organisms or parts of organism are never "partially" formed. You need to come to grips with this simple fact before you can even pose meaningful questions.

The rest of your questions are just scattered misconceptions tantamount to asking how a rock bounced down a hill while blindly ignoring the larger forces involved which give more meaningful answers to what you are trying to understand.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

What are the larger forces?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

The largest force I see here is your ignorance followed by your unwillingness to educate yourself.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

How do we get from worms that don't produce eggs or sperm, are all the same sex,

wow.....

Look up meiosis. How many times do you have to be told this? Eggs and sperm are nothing but cells that have divided. They just happen to be specialized cells created by natural selection over a long period of time but they are essentially the same as any other cells that divide and then recombine.

Look up MEIOSIS, you ignorant git. Clearly you are not looking to educate yourself because you have been told this multiple times.

2 Replies

@parados,

You're fighting an uphill battle. Some people will not accept facts when they have been taught something they want to believe in. Research have been done on people's beliefs. Once they accept something as true, no fact or evidence will change their minds. It only strengthens their resolve. That's the reason why political and religious beliefs can't be changed.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

What are the larger forces?

Variation, Reproduction, Selection and the result they have on biology over time.

I noticed you didn't mention the part about things never being partially formed. It's an important concept, critical to going any further in understanding evolution. Did you get that part?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I don't believe that. And you won't convince me otherwise.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Look up meiosis. How many times do you have to be told this? Eggs and sperm are nothing but cells that have divided. They just happen to be specialized cells created by natural selection over a long period of time but they are essentially the same as any other cells that divide and then recombine.

Quote:

Sexual reproduction is a form of reproduction where two morphologically distinct types of specialized reproductive cells called gametes fuse together, involving a female's large ovum (or egg) and a male's smaller sperm. Each gamete contains half the number of chromosomes of normal cells. They are created by a specialized type of cell division, which only occurs in eukaryotic cells, known as meiosis. The two gametes fuse during fertilization to produce DNA replication and the creation of a single-celled zygote which includes genetic material from both gametes.

Meiosis is not the solution to the physical changes that must be solved for the evolution of a male. Meiosis is the first step in producing sperm. The males sperm still has to be delivered to the egg when the two gametes fuse during fertilization. No delivery system, no sexual reproduction. Males can't reproduce asexually, the Meiosis in males hits a brick wall when the delivery system isn't there isn't developed enough to deliver it to the females gamete. Or, were there males that reproduced asexually while they were evolving organs to produce sexually? What did that animal look like? They didn't look like a worm. Worms were before sex organs for sexual reproduction evolved. They didn't look like a fish. Fish were after sexual reproduction was fully evolved. How did asexually reproducing worms evolve to sexually producing fish? I can understand how the females evolved, because they can reproduce asexually under certain conditions, but the males can't. How did the males delivery system of the product of meiosis evolve?

Quote:

The origin and function of meiosis are fundamental to understanding the evolution of sexual reproduction in Eukaryotes. There is no current consensus among biologists on the questions of how sex in Eukaryotes arose in evolution, what basic function sexual reproduction serves, and why it is maintained, given the basic two-fold cost of sex. It is clear that it evolved over 1.2 billion years ago, and that almost all species which are descendents of the original sexually reproducing species are still sexual reproducers, including plants, fungi, and animals.

If it is unclear to biologists, why is it clear to you, parados? If it is unclear to biologists, how natural selection did it, how can it be clear natural selection by itself can do it at all? Is it because nobody wants to look at any alternatives?

Quote:

Look up MEIOSIS, you ignorant git. Clearly you are not looking to educate yourself because you have been told this multiple times.

Are the biologists referred to in wiki ignorant gits also, or are they smart for admitting they don't know, and it is still a theory with big holes?

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

I noticed you didn't mention the part about things never being partially formed. It's an important concept, critical to going any further in understanding evolution. Did you get that part?

A male with partially formed organs cannot deliver its gamete as I pointed out in the previous post to parados. Doesn't this make it impossible for the male version to reproduce while it is evolving?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Meiosis is not the solution to the physical changes that must be solved for the evolution of a male. Meiosis is the first step in producing sperm. The males sperm still has to be delivered to the egg when the two gametes fuse during fertilization.

Now you are starting to get it. But you are missing the fact that there is no need to deliver it. The current delivery system is a result of natural selection over time. More efficient ways resulted in increasing their numbers in the population.

Quote:

No delivery system, no sexual reproduction

This is where you start to make yourself look ignorant. You are using the current result to argue that nothing previous could have occurred. We know it isn't true because we see everything from single cell organisms to worms to reptiles to fish using different systems that all work just fine without the delivery system you are claiming has to exist for sexual reproduction to work.

Quote:

They didn't look like a worm. Worms were before sex organs for sexual reproduction evolved.

Notice that you admit that creatures were able to reproduce sexually just fine before sex organs evolved. Then you argue that they couldn't do it with what you admit exists and is readily visible in science.

Quote:

I can understand how the females evolved, because they can reproduce asexually under certain conditions, but the males can't.

Once again, you ignore meiosis. Meiosis existed before there were male and female DNA. Sexual reproduction exists without male and female DNA. You are arguing that male and female had to come before meiosis. That makes you ignorant. No scientist would make such an ignorant argument.

Quote:

I can understand how the females evolved, because they can reproduce asexually under certain conditions, but the males can't. How did the males delivery system of the product of meiosis evolve?

You need to look up temperature dependent sex determination. Males are not always males and females are not always females. Males and females are a result of evolution. Sexual reproduction occurred before DNA permanently set male and female characteristics.

You ignore all the variables that don't fit what you want to believe it seems. You jump right to the end and say there is no way to get there. That is complete nonsense on your part. If human males all suddenly had penises that were 1/4" long the human race could still reproduce. If human males had vaginas that produced sperm, humans would still be able to reproduce. In those cases it would be less likely for them to reproduce and eventually those males that had offspring that had a longer penis would produce more offspring and penises would come about. I wonder if you have ever taken a human sexuality course. Women can get pregnant without intercourse. It's why "pulling out" isn't a reliable form of birth control.

The only thing that sexual reproduction requires is that there is some way for cells to perform meiosis. Once that starts happening everything else is a natural selection of which offspring with which attributes can reproduce more over time. There is no need for penises and vaginas to show up completely. They would slowly evolve.

Why do most mammals carry their fertilized eggs and birds lay their fertilized eggs? Why do some creatures fertilize their eggs in the female and others fertilize their eggs in the male and other still fertilize them outside both the male and female. Clearly all the systems are capable of working. Natural selection has simply made it what it is. There is no need to demand there be only one way as found in one species and all other ways do not exist.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Quote:
The origin and function of meiosis are fundamental to understanding the evolution of sexual reproduction in Eukaryotes. There is no current consensus among biologists on the questions of how sex in Eukaryotes arose in evolution, what basic function sexual reproduction serves, and why it is maintained, given the basic two-fold cost of sex. It is clear that it evolved over 1.2 billion years ago, and that almost all species which are descendents of the original sexually reproducing species are still sexual reproducers, including plants, fungi, and animals.
If it is unclear to biologists, why is it clear to you, parados? If it is unclear to biologists, how natural selection did it, how can it be clear natural selection by itself can do it at all? Is it because nobody wants to look at any alternatives?

Read the entire statement. I have never said I know how sex in Eukaryotes arose. I have only said that once meiosis started occurring natural selection was in place to make changes and create better survival rates for certain characteristics.

Let me highlight parts of that paragraph you seem incapable of understanding.

Quote:

There is no current consensus among biologists on the questions of how sex in Eukaryotes arose

Look up the word "arose". You seem to not understand it.

Quote:

almost all species which are descendents of the original sexually reproducing species

Look up the word "descendants". Now tell us what evolution theory predicts about descendants from an original species over a billion years ago.

Not only are you ignorant about evolution theory. You are ignorant about the English language it seems.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

A male with partially formed organs cannot deliver its gamete as I pointed out in the previous post to parados. Doesn't this make it impossible for the male version to reproduce while it is evolving?

You completely ignored what rosborne said. There is no such thing as partially formed organs. Organs are always in the process of evolving over long periods of time.

Whatever form of organ in a given population produces the most viable offspring with the best survival and reproduction rates is the one that will pass it's traits on to the population. There is no need for both organs to evolve at the same time. There is only a need to able to reproduce in some fashion.

Quote:

Doesn't this make it impossible for the male version to reproduce while it is evolving?

This question shows you know nothing and refuse to educate yourself. If a population can't reproduce than it dies out. The simple fact that males exist shows the lie to the premise of your question.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

the fact that males exist shows the lie

What is the lie?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

This is your lie -

Quote:

A male with partially formed organs cannot deliver its gamete

1. You claim a male has partially formed organs. You make the false assumption that current organ development is fully formed and everything else is partially formed.
2. If a male can't deliver it's gamete then it can't reproduce. Clearly males exist so they were able to do what you said they can't when their organs were of a different form.

Your statement is factually untrue. You have been told it is untrue. You continue to make the statement even after being told it is factually untrue. That means you are knowingly telling an untruth. It is a lie. You are then basing your leading questions on your lie.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

There is no such thing as "Partially Formed". You clearly aren't getting this.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

1. You claim a male has partially formed organs. You make the false assumption that current organ development is fully formed and everything else is partially formed.

I am not claiming that they must be fully formed, they just have to formed enough to do the job at all. There are a lot of different organs that have to form in the male, and they have to be complete enough to work.

Quote:

2. If a male can't deliver it's gamete then it can't reproduce. Clearly males exist so they were able to do what you said they can't when their organs were of a different form.

Quote:

There is no current consensus among biologists on the questions of how sex in Eukaryotes arose in evolution, what basic function sexual reproduction serves, and why it is maintained, given the basic two-fold cost of sex.

If biologists could explain how the male evolved, maybe they would have consensus. Explaining why we have males is a problem.

Quote:

Origin of sex chromosomes[edit]
The ends of the XY chromosomes, highlighted here in green, are all that is left of the original autosomes that can still cross-over with each other.
The accepted hypothesis of XY and ZW sex chromosome evolution is that they evolved at the same time, in two different branches.[27] However, there is some evidence to suggest that there could have been transitions between ZW and XY, such as in Xiphophorus maculatus, which have both ZW and XY systems in the same population, despite the fact that ZW and XY have different gene locations.[29][30] A recent theoretical model raises the possibility of both transitions between the XY/XX and ZZ/ZW system and environmental sex determination[31] The platypus' genes also back up the possible evolutionary link between XY and ZW, because they have the DMRT1 gene possessed by birds on their X chromosomes.[32] Regardless, XY and ZW follow a similar route. All sex chromosomes started out as an original autosome of an original amniote that relied upon temperature to determine the sex of offspring. After the mammals separated, the branch further split into Lepidosauria and Archosauromorpha. These two groups both evolved the ZW system separately, as evidenced by the existence of different sex chromosomal locations.[28] In mammals, one of the autosome pair, now Y, mutated its SOX3 gene into the SRY gene, causing that chromosome to designate sex.[28][32][33] After this mutation, the SRY-containing chromosome inverted and was no longer completely homologous with its partner. The regions of the X and Y chromosomes that are still homologous to one another are known as the pseudoautosomal region.[34] Once it inverted, the Y chromosome became unable to remedy deleterious mutations, and thus degenerated.[28] There is some concern that the Y chromosome will shrink further and stop functioning in 10 million years, but other evidence has shown that the Y chromosome has been strictly conserved after its initial rapid gene loss.[35][36]

There are some species, such as the medaka fish, that evolved sex chromosomes separately; their Y chromosome never inverted and can still swap genes with the X. These species are still in an early phase of evolution with regard to their sex chromosomes. Because the Y does not have male-specific genes and can interact with the X, XY and YY females can be formed as well as XX males.[8]

As you can see in the bold faced wording, there is an accepted hypothesis based on some evidence in the genetic code. I would like to learn what these people know, and how confident they are. Are they all ready to call this theory a near fact? Is there any hypothesis on how these transitions occurred in a gradual and systematic way that can be explained by natural selection. is there evidence in fossils? Did the males change back and forth with the temperature and evolve as females and then became mating males as soon as the basic organs evolved enough to mate? Is that the answer?

Quote:

Your statement is factually untrue. You have been told it is untrue. You continue to make the statement even after being told it is factually untrue.

"You" have told me it was untrue. I am just asking you to back up that statement by answering a few questions. Thank you for your answers. You are helping me think this through. So, did the males change back and forth as they evolved from simple asexual organisms to complex sexual organisms?

4 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I am not claiming that they must be fully formed, they just have to formed enough to do the job at all.

You're not listening to all the factual information presented from one cell to multi cell. It's called evolution.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/01/key-step-in-evolution-from-single-to-multi-cell-clusters-discovered.html

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know