Such a thing is an impossibility.
That the impossible does not occur, is neither an argument for evolution, nor an argument against anything else.
Sexual reproduction, in and of itself, does not infer evolution, and to suggest that it does is simply absurd...like it or not.
Such a thing is an impossibility.
That the impossible does not occur, is neither an argument for evolution, nor an argument against anything else.
Sexual reproduction, in and of itself, does not infer evolution, and to suggest that it does is simply absurd...like it or not.
A definition of evolution "In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next by reproduction or nature. In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time."
Actually you might try reading Darwin. In the second chapter, minute change and difference that occur by reproduction or nature. He did not use the term evolution and it is a later term to include both change and difference. Most people that argue against evolution have no idea of what it means or the simplest definition and just say they are against it or its absurd. Absent evolution the only thing possible as a material fact of a species is a clone. When one argues that change and difference, or evolution is not a fact or does not occur then you are arguing the existence of a clone. What is absurd is how many proclaim themselves clones. I neither like it or dislike it but find the clone position as amusing as a creationists belief in a flat earth.