Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution

On Jun 15, 12:39 pm, Pahu <pah...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary
reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and
independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place.
Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both
reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and
female would also need to be compatible (a).

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system
(pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical
(b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female
reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level
inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision-
processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through
adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable
adult (who also "accidentally" evolved), would have to be tightly
controlled.

f. This remarkable string of "accidents" must have been repeated for
millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by
random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by
intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps by which an
embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all
animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than
sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an
organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual
reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise-or survive?
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for
natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability
to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).

a. "In humans and in all mammals, a mother's immune system, contrary
to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby-half
of whom is a 'foreign body' from the father. If these immune systems
functioned 'properly,' mammals-including each of us-would not exist.
The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations
of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet
emerged." [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London:
Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]

b. N. W. Pixie, "Boring Sperm," Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p.
704.

c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, "Electrical Responses of
Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm," Science,
Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654-1656.

d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?

e. "But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode
are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in
mammals." Jean Marx, "Tracing How the Sexes Develop," Science, Vol.
269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.

f. "This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of
sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with
current evolutionary theory." George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.

"So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the
question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians
(notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no
convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.
However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be
solved without abandoning the main
Darwinian insights-just as early nineteenth-century astronomers
believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome
without major modification of Newton's celestial mechanics." Philip
Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.

"The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of
biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often
freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is
maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists." Michael Rose,
"Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup," New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30
October 1986, p. 55.

"Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in
evolutionary biology today." Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, "Why
Sex?" Discover, February 1984, p. 24.

"Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists.
Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded
secret." Kathleen McAuliffe, "Why We Have Sex," Omni, December 1983,
p. 18.

"From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible
to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between
the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that
intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a
species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges
between two amazingly different structural types?" Nilsson, p. 1225.

"One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that
no one knows why sex persists." [According to evolution, it should
not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, "Why Is Sex?" Science News, Vol. 126, 8
September 1984, p. 155.

g. "In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and
mechanist concur except on just one point-a work of art, a machine or
a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself." Pitman,
p. 135.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences44.html#wp1861111

Chance, blah, blah, blah yet again.

Of course evolution of the two sexes, (of any animal, not just
humans), is "in-sync"; chance doesn't matter. All you need is time.

If an animal, male or female, is born with an incompatible difference
it won't have offspring. End of that mutation.

If an animal, male or female, is born with a beneficial difference it
will have more offspring and the mutation will slowly propagate.

The end. There is NO way development of two sexes can NOT progress
together. Chance does not factor into the equation because we have
evolved over billions and billions of years. In all that time,
billions and billions of mutations have occurred in our ancestors and
the unsuccessful ones ALL DIED. It doesn't matter whether it's a
change in sexual development or an animal is born with raspberry jelly
instead of a colon; the animal quickly dies or does not have
offspring.

---
Strange

.

Relevant Pages