Sunday, April 24, 2011

Evolution and sex

Following quote from F. Lagard Smith :

"For myself,the "grassy knoll" I would want most to scrutinize is the one where evolution supposedly moved from asexual beings to sexual beings.Even Darwin was stumped on this one,and there haven't been any satisfying explanations since.

For the theory of evolution to work,at some point in time asexual organisms would have to be altered dramatically so as to be constitutionally different organisms.The problem is that,in order to make such an extraordinary leap,two asexual beings,acting independently,must have developed highly complex sexual organs within a single generation.(Otherwise,how could they possibly have replicated themselves sexually,as opposed to asexually,for the next generation?)And,of course,it would have required simultaneous development of both male and female sexual organs two beings who just happen to be in the same spot on the planet in exactly the same time...who also just happened to be madly attracted to each other!It's not the missing link between man and apes evolutionists need to worry about most,but the missing sex link."~from "Troubling Questions for Calvinists" p. 60(where he's comparing how evolution,like Calvinism,sometimes flies with many crucial questions not being satisfactorily or logically addressed)

from youtube user ppsimmons:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 2:23 the man said,“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;she shall be called Woman,because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.


  1. Interesting post, Kellie. On the same note, these two suddenly developed sexual reproductive organs would also have had to have been compatible. It's not merely that they had to develop simultaneously but that they had to do so within the same species and yet compatible with one another. What are the chances of that?

    For instance, if it had been male and male that would have been a futile combination for no offspring could result. Same if it were female and female.

    However, with the male and female reproductive organs, both are compatible for one another. And not merely for reproductive purposes but also for sexual enjoyment and satisfaction. (cf 1 Corinthians 7)

  2. Regarding sex and evolution:

    I hope to be defending the theory of evolution on my wordpress. Perhaps I will see you there. Also see if you can google biologist Kenneth Miller. Hope this helps.