132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 09:12 am
@parados,
the first occurences of sexual reprodution go back in the fossil record to the post Cryogenian. The occurence of "spatfalls among the fossils of eukaryotes in the ediacaran " and the quick rise of dimorphism and polymorphism supports the benefits of sexual v asexual repro.

parados
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 09:41 am
@farmerman,
He has been told this but insists that sexual reproduction can't happen until the current sex organs that exist were formed.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 11:15 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
the first occurences of sexual reprodution go back in the fossil record to the post Cryogenian. The occurence of "spatfalls among the fossils of eukaryotes in the ediacaran " and the quick rise of dimorphism and polymorphism supports the benefits of sexual v asexual repro.
While I can't fault your points here I don't think they address the question at hand. You might as well say it was post Big Bang and of course you could say that anything that happened illustrates the benefits of whatever, - because it now exists.
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 11:32 am
@Leadfoot,
no, its valid evidence of an initial occurence of fertilization in a gang bang. I assume that sexual reproduction had occured previously but just wasnt fossilized. The rise of dimorphim was a separate step since sexual reproduction is the onky way that can occur.
. I dont think that spoonfeeding someone helps them think for themselves.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 01:14 pm
@brianjakub,
brianjakub wrote:
Instead of getting angry and calling names. Why don't you fill in the gaps?
I found the following description of the transitional period between amphibians and amniotes. Maybe this will help you understand the transition.

Richard Carrier wrote:

Question: How did male and female reproductive systems develop at the same time in separate organisms accidentally?

Answer: They didn't.
Sexual reproduction began without sexually distinct organs, and then such organs evolved in tandem over time. Many plants, for example, are hermaphroditic: each plant has both male and female sexual organs. But the first sexually reproducing organisms were a form of single-celled bacterium which thus had no organs at all. As sexually reproducing organisms evolved into multicellular forms and their cells began to specialize, some cells began specializing for male and female reproductive function, both evolving at the same time, by small gradual steps.

Evidence suggests gendered organs probably began as organs in the same individual (as in many plants), then the capacity evolved in some species for individuals to become gender diversified by their environment (as in many reptiles, some developing male organs, some female), and then finally these gender differences became locked into DNA as a chromosome mutation. All this occurred long before any mammal existed. Thus, the very first mammals were already genetically evolved to have fixed genders, and already had matched gendered organs in place, as those organs had evolved long before (from fish through reptiles). Human sex organs are just evolved versions of their mammalian ancestors' sex organs, which is why our genitalia are almost identical to those of apes and monkeys. And mammalian sex organs are just evolved versions of the sex organs of their ancestors, the reptiles, which is why mammals have genitalia most similar to reptiles (in contrast to birds, insects, or fish, for example).

It's worth adding that the implication of the question being asked is that sex organs have to "fit" each other, which is actually a late development in animal history. Fish, for example, never even come into contact. The male organs merely inseminate eggs that have already been laid by the female. This procedure gradually evolved into the system most commonly found in reptiles, where the male inseminates the eggs while still in the female, originally relying on only a very crude fit between genitals. But once this had begun, a better and better fit evolved. Then some of these reptiles evolved away the need for an actual egg and thus started giving live births, and from them mammals evolved, which is why we don't lay eggs. Hence the "fit" between human genitalia is a feature that has gradually evolved over eons, and had already been well developed even before mammals appeared (much less people).

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 01:22 pm
@rosborne979,
It's easy to find articles on how sex evolved.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=how+sex+evolved&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
rosborne979
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 02:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, but he's asking for something far more specific. He's trying to understand the evolution of the physical morphological organs involved. He's not asking about the cellular. Most articles (like the link you provided) are focused on the earlier evolution of the genetic mechanisms.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 03:14 pm
@rosborne979,
Since we have no other evidence than what is provided by scientists who study this subject, I'm prone to believe them until new findings are found.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 04:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Since we have no other evidence than what is provided by scientists who study this subject, I'm prone to believe them until new findings are found.

Of course, me too. But other people are still allowed to ask for help in understanding what science tells us. And that's all Brian seems to be doing.

I can read between the lines and see that his questions are derived from Creationist Propaganda and from his other posts he's clearly attempting to build a case (or cases) for an imaginary friend. But so long as all he asks for is help in understanding the science (in this case evolution), then it seems reasonable to try to help him understand how the process really works.
parados
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 04:43 pm
@rosborne979,
Brian linked to his religious manifesto where he questions science and posts Bible verses to explain what he thinks can't be explained by science. He isn't trying to understand the science at all.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 04:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Since we have no other evidence than what is provided by scientists who study this subject, I'm prone to believe them until new findings are found.
That's an honest answer, and it does shed light on the question at hand. Most here want the questioner to accept that because "it happened" , it had to have happened via the accepted mutation and natural selection process that all of evolution rests on - No matter how unlikely this particular leap seems. It requires the questioner to accept 'on faith' that it happened that way without evidence.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 04:54 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Brian linked to his religious manifesto where he questions science and posts Bible verses to explain what he thinks can't be explained by science. He isn't trying to understand the science at all.

Holy ****. What a naked confession of prejudice.

Burn him, he mentioned the Bible! He's a witch!
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 06:20 pm
@Leadfoot,
since the Bible makes no attempt to verify its writings , nor does it demand such verification (by evidence), It stands as an example of Faith over Reason. So maybe while you exaggerate the "Burn him" statement just for effect, youve not provided anything to show that the Bible has nothing but faith with which to back it.
So attempting to make it sound like somekind of reason prevails in your posts, most people, familiar with technical rules of evidence , will demand that you put up or leave it alone.
After all, the OP, long gone, had asked some decent questions that were answered long time ago. In those answers the differences between faith and science were sufficiently beaten to death. BRianjakub has no fuckin idea about what hes even talking. Hes drafted crap from Wikipedia, laid it out and then drafted conflicting doublespeak "gobbledygook" statements and he doesnt even know it.

All youre doing is encouraging him.




parados
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 08:42 pm
@Leadfoot,
No. He isn't a witch. He is deluded into thinking that the Bible is science when he uses Bible verses to support his statements about how the world works
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 09:42 pm
@rosborne979,
Richard Carrier wrote:
Quote:
Question: How did male and female reproductive systems develop at the same time in separate organisms accidentally?

Answer: They didn't.
Quote:
Evidence suggests gendered organs probably began as organs in the same individual (as in many plants), then the capacity evolved in some species for individuals to become gender diversified by their environment (as in many reptiles, some developing male organs, some female), and then finally these gender differences became locked into DNA as a chromosome mutation
What is this evidence suggesting this? What evidence do we have that reptiles developed gender diversification? How did the male and female version of these reptiles reproduce while they were evolving? Were there males that fertilized their own eggs? Is there fossil evidence of this? I thought DNA is always locked. Was the DNA unlocked at one time?
Quote:
But once this had begun, a better and better fit evolved. Then some of these reptiles evolved away the need for an actual egg and thus started giving live births, and from them mammals evolved, which is why we don't lay eggs. Hence the "fit" between human genitalia is a feature that has gradually evolved over eons, and had already been well developed even before mammals appeared (much less people).
How did this better fit evolve in separate sexes. There is a big difference between an egg carrying reptile and an animal with a womb. They didn't evolve separately in mammals, but they did in reptiles. The second and third quotes seem to contradict the first.
Quote:
Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is a historian, atheist activist, author, public speaker, and blogger. He has a doctorate in ancient history from Columbia University where his thesis was on the history of science in ancient antiquity. He is a leading proponent of the Christ myth theory.[2]
Can Richard back this up with evidence?
brianjakub
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 09:59 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Brian linked to his religious manifesto where he questions science and posts Bible verses to explain what he thinks can't be explained by science. He isn't trying to understand the science at all.
I am posting a picture of the physical structure of space and matter, along with how a Designer might have done it. I am providing an alternate theory with as much evidence both scientifically, and historically as I can. It is very hard to find documentation on a designer that designed possibly millions to billions of years ago. A lot has happened since then. There is only one man in history that claimed to be there at the beginning of the creation, and then claimed to become one of us to tell us who he is. Either he was nuts, or he is who he claims to be. A lot of people believed him then, and many still do. (Some are very intelligent, and even some scientists, God forbid.) I admit trying to make his story fit the evidence requires taking him at his word, and rethinking assumptions made by science today. If he is who he said he was, more than likely he did what he said he did, because he could. Does the evidence fit his story as I attempted to interpret it? If nothing else, does my picture of the structure of space and matter fit the evidence regardless of how that structure originated?
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 10:04 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:

Yes, but he's asking for something far more specific. He's trying to understand the evolution of the physical morphological organs involved. He's not asking about the cellular. Most articles (like the link you provided) are focused on the earlier evolution of the genetic mechanisms.
I am trying to learn and have on honest dialogue. I have preconceived biases like anyone, but I and anyone reading this can learn from at. No ask, no learn.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 10:07 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
since the Bible makes no attempt to verify its writings , nor does it demand such verification (by evidence), It stands as an example of Faith over Reason.

My point was that many here can't envision that it's possible for someone to ask a legitimate scientific question if they have ever contemplated anything in the bible. That's just silly.
But I have to point out that theoretical physicists often work their whole careers on without having any proof of their theories. They work on faith that the universe makes sense. I agree it does but probably for a different reason :-)

Quote:
So maybe while you exaggerate the "Burn him" statement just for effect, youve not provided anything to show that the Bible has nothing but faith with which to back it.
Yes, of course it was for effect. But I generally don't engage in science vs bible discussions unless the 'science rep' seriously out to lunch on what they think the bible says. I wasn't talking about the bible at all here other that to say that it's being brought up inappropriately by Parados.
Brianjakub's physics theories have a lot of holes in them (although his speed of light theory was interesting) but his question about sexual reproduction was totally legit. His electron flow theory was better that he himself thought but he didn't have the physics chops to defend it and let himself get led down a few rabbit holes while trying.
Quote:
All youre doing is encouraging him.
I always encourage people to ask questions.


brianjakub
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2016 10:19 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Brianjakub's physics theories have a lot of holes in them (although his speed of light theory was interesting) but his question about sexual reproduction was totally legit. His electron flow theory was better that he himself thought but he didn't have the physics chops to defend it and let himself get led down a few rabbit holes while trying
I think my theory is weak for the reasons you said, but, I think maybe the picture is close to right. I am hoping to better learn how to describe it. I wrote most of it 12 years ago, and if I could fix the terminology I've learned since then that I know is wrong, while finding time to keep learning and support a family, it could be a lot better. I hope that the picture someday, means something to someone smarter than me.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Sat 23 Apr, 2016 07:36 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
What is this evidence suggesting this? What evidence do we have that reptiles developed gender diversification? How did the male and female version of these reptiles reproduce while they were evolving?

This has been answered and you didn't bother to read or understand it.

Let me lead you down the garden path again so you can deny it 3 times again.
Gender is not dependent on genes in some reptiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature-dependent_sex_determination

Sex is not needed for reptiles to reproduce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

Stop and think about this for a moment. Females can have male genes. Females can reproduce without sex. Males can be created simply by having a temperature change.

Now. Tell us how you think reptiles can reproduce without male and female sex organs. It's all right there in the literature.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 05:13:29