For me, one of the biggest proofs that random evolution is imposible as an explanation for life is the fact that all but the simplest of life forms require both a male and a female in order to reproduce.
In order for that arrangement to come about by random chance, you would have to have both a fully funtional male and a fully funtional female develop independantly of each other within the same population within a single generation. And despite developing independantly of one another, their reproductive systems would have to be 100% compatible with each other.
The amount of blind faith needed to believe that such a complex system could arise by pure chance staggers the mind.
On the other hand, special creation by God, as described in the Bible, has no problem explaining such things.
38 comments
Argument from ignorance. Nothing to see here, folks. Nothing to see here. If you want or need any more information, just google "sexual selection". Any incredulity you might have, will be mostly gone within a half hour.
That's not how evolution works. Actually, that's not even how genetics work.
You should open up a biology book and read how genes and reproducing works, you know the whole thing about the sperm carrying dna and the egg carrying dna and them creating a new string of dna and from that stem cell a human is grown. Or ask any teenage kid, they should also be able to explain that to you.
Whiptail lizard; only females in some species.
Evolution is not random chance, but adaptation through random mutations and NATURAL SELECTION. The male sex chromosome, which is (sort of) missing a part, was probably one of those random mutations WITHIN a species, and as mixing different things makes for more different possibilities, it was SELECTED by NATURE.
The amount of blind faith needed to not realize that the Bible doesn't explain anything, staggers the mind. It's just Goddidit.
"In order for that arrangement to come about by random chance, you would have to have both a fully funtional male and a fully funtional female develop independantly of each other within the same population within a single generation. And despite developing independantly of one another, their reproductive systems would have to be 100% compatible with each other."
"funtional". Is this a new word for the "fun" that happens when male and females get jiggy?
Anyway back to the point. Male and female gametes did not have to evolve simultaneously. There are species that can reproduce asexually and sexually without the sub-division of male and female gametes. Once a species does this the species can, over time, develop differing reproductive gamete cells that we eventually will call male and female when they become different enough from each other to start performing different reproductive functions.
There you go, no God mumbling abracadabra required.
In order for that arrangement to come about by random chance, you would have to have both a fully funtional male and a fully funtional female develop independantly of each other within the same population within a single generation.
No you wouldn't. All you need is a modification of the cell-division process to create haploid cells (meiosis) and a means of disbursing some of them. Sponges don't have "a fully funtional male and a fully functional female" - they just produce haploid cells, which either remain with the sponge ("female") or get disbursed into the water ("male") to join the "female" cells of other sponges.
"In order for that arrangement to come about by random chance, you would have to have both a fully funtional male and a fully funtional female develop independantly of each other within the same population within a single generation. And despite developing independantly of one another, their reproductive systems would have to be 100% compatible with each other."
That is not only not even CLOSE to being true, this question has long since been answered. Sexual reproduction evolved because it is a highly desirable way to share genetic diversity and adapt quickly to new environments. Asexual reproduction simply produces clones with extremely little variation.
Because "special creation by God" explains nothing, it's just an assertion. Equal only to the many other creation myths.I can boil science down to an equal over-simplified and undetailed assertion.
Shit happens.
I'm always amused at how these folks, with few correct ideas about science in general much less the ToE specifically, are so bold in blathering on and on about evolution. It's like preaching about the Bible without having actually ever read it. Oh, yeah... same folks, huh?
For me,
Yes, for you, lonely you.
But for the rest of the thinking world everything's quite all right about evolution.
yeasts have two "sexes" where the only difference between the sexes is the chemicals they produce to attract a mate, sex as we understand it did not have to appear fully formed.
see also this Wikipedia page for information on the evolution of sperm and eggs.
Ah, an argument of irreducible complexity. The link anti-nonsense gave addresses that nicely. Also: Parthenogenesis! Your argument is invalid!
"The amount of blind faith needed to believe that such a complex system could arise by pure chance staggers the mind."
Yeah, the argument from incredulity is also invalid. Now run along and play your toys or something, and leave evolution to the adults.
On the other hand, special creation by God, as described in the Bible, has no problem explaining such things.
And the explanation for God and how God came about is.....
<b>In order for that arrangement to come about by random chance, you would have to have both a fully funtional male and a fully funtional female develop independantly of each other within the same population within a single generation. And despite developing independantly of one another, their reproductive systems would have to be 100% compatible with each other. </b>
Sounds eerily similar to Ray Comfort's woefully stupid "First Dog" argument.
Needless to say, you are both dumb and wrong.
I can't be too hard on him. His premises sound plausible, and if true they would indeed constitute good reason to doubt evolution.
^^^...species with many more sexes than two.
Useless fact, the split gill fungus Schizophyllum commune has over 28,000 sexes.
special creation by God, as described in the Bible, has no problem explaining such things.
But yet you seem to have trouble explaining why God created animals male & female. That always falls into the "We cannot know the mind of God" category.
"special creation by God, as described in the Bible, has no problem explaining such things"
Except how it got around the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
