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.
Where then, and why, did the myth of medieval belief in a flat earth arise? Russell's historiographic work gives us a good fix on both times and people. None of the great eighteenth-century anticlerical rationalists -- not Condillac, Condorcet, Diderot, Gibbon, Hume, or our own Benjamin Franklin -- accused the scholastics of believing in a flat earth, though these men were all unsparing in their contempt for medieval versions of Christianity. Washington Irving gave the flat earth story a good boost in his largely fictional history of Columbus, published in 1828 -- but his version did not take hold. The legend grew during the ninetheenth century, but did not enter the crucial domains of schoolboy pap or tour-guide lingo. Russell did an interesting survey of nineteenth-century history texts for secondary schools, and found that very few mentioned the flat earth myth before 1870, but that almost all texts after 1880 featured the legend. We can therefore pinpoint the invasion of general culture by the flat-earth myth to the period between 1860 and 1890.Those years also featured the spread of an intellectual movement based on the second error of taxonomic categories explored in this essay -- the portrayal of Western history as a perpetual struggle, if not an outright "war," between science and religion, with progress linked to the victory of science and the subsequent retreat of theology. Such movements always need whipping boys and legends to advance their claims. Russell argues that the flat-earth myth achieved its canonical status as a primary homily for the triumph of science under this false dichotomization of Western history. How could a better story for the army of science ever be concocted? Religious darkness destroys Greek knowledge and weaves us into a web of fears, based on dogma and opposed both to rationality and experience. Our ancestors therefore lived in anxiety, restricted by official irrationality, afraid that any challenge could only lead to a fall off the edge of the earth into eternal damnation. A fit tale for an intended purpose, but entirely false because few medieval scholars ever doubted the earth's sphericity.
-Stephen J. Gould, Dinosaur In A Haystack, pg 42/43