[drtom]

Not sure where you got the basis for your statement.

Where did I say that sexuality is conclusive and sufficient proof for evolution? You have to follow the chain of argument before impute such a thing. If anything, the fallacy occurred on the theists' side:

Consider the claim in post 32. It stipulated that there will never be a plausible way to bridge the emergence of sexuality and evolution, effectively implying that there CANNOT be a bridge because sexuality is a hallmark of creation (if anywhere, this is where your fallacy argument comes to play).

In response, I showed that sexuality is in fact compatible with an evolutionary context.

Where did you see a postulation "because there is sexuality, evolution is proven"?

[GourmetDan]

"Not sure where you got the basis for your statement."

You seem to be confusing my posts w/ grey-whiskers.

"In response, I showed that sexuality is in fact compatible with an evolutionary context."

Again, the point is that the existence of biological systems, mechanisms, behaviors, etc is not evidence of 'compatibility' with evolution without engaging in logical fallacy.