I was talking to a close friend of mine about evolution and how ridiculous it is. I was telling my friend that God made everything and the majority He did make within 6 days. I brought up the argument that one of my biggest thing I have against evolution is that sex cant be explained by evolution.
No doubt they have tried as they do with all things ( shows the arrogance of man to admit He is wrong with evolution) and no doubt some Atheists on yahoo will say a bunch of silly things trying to answer this powerful question. There is an article i read by Harrub and Thompson posting arguments against evolution and sex. Some of it reads:
The origin and maintenance of sex and recombination is not easily explained by natural selection. Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction. Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders-each with its own physiology? If, as evolutionists have argued, there is a materialistic answer for everything, then the question should be answered: Why sex? Is sex the product of a historical accident or the product of an intelligent Creator? The current article reviews some of the current theories for why sexual reproduction exists today. Yet, as these theories valiantly attempt to explain why sex exists now, they do not explain the origin of sex. We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the origin and maintenance of sex.
Introduction
iology texts illustrate amoebas evolving into intermediate organisms, which then give rise to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and, eventually, humans. Yet, we never learn exactly when or how independent male and female sexes originated. Somewhere along this evolutionary path, both males and females were required in order to ensure the procreation that was necessary to further the existence of a particular species. But how do evolutionists explain this? When pressed to answer questions such as, “Where did males and females actually come from?,” “What is the evolutionary origin of sex?,” evolutionists become silent. How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells? [Somatic cells reproduce via the process of mitosis, which maintains the species’ standard chromosome number; gametes are produced via the process of meiosis, which halves that number. We will have more to say about both processes later.]
The evolution of sex (and its accompanying reproductive capability) is not a favorite topic of discussion in most evolutionary circles, because no matter how many theories evolutionists conjure up (and there are several), they still must surmount the enormous hurdle of explaining the origin of the first fully functional female and the first fully functional male necessary to begin the process. In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, Graham Bell described the dilemma in the following manner:
‘Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation.’[1]
The same year that Bell released his book, well-known evolutionist Philip Kitcher noted: “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.”[2] Evolutionists since have freely admitted that the origin of gender and sexual reproduction still remains one of the most difficult problems in biology (see, for example, Maynard-Smith, 1986, p. 35). In his 2001 book, The Cooperative Gene, evolutionist Mark Ridley wrote (under the chapter title of “The Ultimate Existential Absurdity”):
‘Evolutionary biologists are much teased for their obsession with why sex exists. People like to ask, in an amused way, “isn’t it obvious?” Joking apart, it is far from obvious…. Sex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists’[3] [emp. added]… – B. Harrab and B. Thompson
My question with regards to who made sex and reproductive organs and man and woman and the earth, is: Isn’t it obvious?
God did!
Isn’t it obvious?
@ Paranoid: Stupid, stupid, stupid i expected a better response, thats sounds more like the fairy tale. Anyone can use that case to say anything, but based on the functionality of the study done by genes then that would have allowed the creation of man made repro cells to the extent biological make ups.
@ everyone else i told you they would come with crazy responses. lol
