Posted on 05/18/2018 8:07:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We have Charles Darwin to thank for opening our eyes to the forces of natural selection so useful today in medical research, healthcare, and technology. But Darwin also did us a great disservice, all too blithely extrapolating from observable "bounded" evolution to his Grand Theory of microbe-to-man "unbounded" evolution. In a nutshell, Darwin speculated that, since there is evolution within well-defined species, then all species must surely be the result of evolution. Logical enough, but simply wrong. Darwin's extrapolation is fraught with a host of problems, at least one of whichin three particularsis fatal to his Grand Theory.
That fatal flaw? The origin of sexual reproduction. Evolution (and evolutionists) simply can't explain it, and Darwin himself never even tried. The way he talked around the edges makes one wonder how Darwin could not have considered the difficulty, especially since he candidly addressed a number of other difficulties with his theory. In his books, Darwin discussed sexual selection, gender divergence, and all sorts of matters pertaining to breeding, but, curiously, not a single word about the origin of sex. Did Darwin simply take sex for granted since the biological world is awash with sex? Was he just too close to the problem to recognize it? Or is it possible that this particular difficulty was too much of a threat to his elegant theory to highlight it for his readers and critics? Whatever the explanation, it's clear that Darwin never seriously dealt with the following three devastating problems with his theory:
1. Natural selection could not have "selected" from genderless asexual replication the DNA information necessary for evolving the very first male and female forms necessary for sexual reproduction. If, as evolution theory teaches, asexual replication was the sole, primitive form of biological reproduction on the planet, in order to move the evolutionary process forward to sexual reproduction it first would have been necessary to evolve separate genders. Male and female forms would have to appear separately, concurrently, and compatibly in order for the first-ever sexual reproduction to occur. Because genderless asexual DNA only enables the production of exact copies, there is no DNA information that possibly could be "selected" to produce never-before-seen gender.
2. Natural selection could not possibly have evolved even the most elementary form of sex bymeiosisa radically-different form of reproduction from "exact-copy" asexual mitosis. Unlikemitosis, in which an organism simply clones itself by making identical "selfies," male/female meiosisrequires a precise 50% reduction of (compatible) chromosomes, a mind-boggling process of "crossing over," and a breathtaking recombination whereby the offspring is a genetically-different organism from any other that's ever existed. Without having all the right kinds of bells and whistles in place simultaneously in Generation One, the first-ever prototype of male/female meiosis never could have gotten off the ground to move on to Generation Two of sexually-reproducing creatures. No gradual process of natural selection possibly could have evolved this revolutionary form of reproduction.
3. Natural selection could not possibly have provided simultaneous, on-time delivery of the first sexually-compatible pair of any species in order to move to the second generation of that species, nor certainly to any other, "higher" species along the supposed chain of common descent from microbe to man. How do we know we have a distinct species? When it can't reproduce with any other species on the planet. Species are not just different in form and function. Most crucially, they're sexually unique. Despite certain similarities with the mating and reproductive processes of other species, each species is unique in its sexual equipment, its particular method of reproduction, and in its sexual instincts. Since no random, gradual, natural process possibly could have provided the first compatible pair of each of millions of sexually-unique species, no upwardly evolving "evolutionary tree" ever occurred.
Taken together, the first two problems are quietly acknowledged by evolutionists to be the "Queen of evolutionary problems" for which, despite their best efforts, they have no answers. Remarkably, the third (even more obvious) problem is never once addressed by evolutionists. Could that be because, as with Darwin himself, mentioning it would risk destroying an elegant, but fatally-flawed theory?
Interesting claim. Can you prove it?
You know, I am a Christian and Bible believer.
And I am sick and tired of people like the author of this idiotic piece making us all look foolish by denying scientific facts instead of trying to reconcile those facts with scripture.
You know, I am a Christian and Bible believer.
And I am sick and tired of people like the author of this idiotic piece making us all look foolish by denying scientific facts instead of trying to reconcile those facts with scripture.
****************************************************
Ditto. But I do think folks such as the author mean well.
Which scientific facts is the author denying? Evolution is silent on how sexual reproduction was introduced into biological life. Every mammal, insect, avain, amphibian, and aquatic life form relies upon two distinct sexes to survive. Every one of these types had to have descended from one, as of yet, unidentified species that separated into two sexes. Nothing short of creation can answer this.
Perhaps you could provide answers to the questions posed in this idiotic piece. The amount of magical thinking required to believe the evolution myth exponentially exceeds that required to believe in an all powerful Creator.
You claim to be a Bible believing Christian, yet deny the power of God, preferring to believe the logically impossible myth of evolution.
'Scientific facts'... the gods of the modern era ... look what they claim about man made climate change... Have you read what God said about the 'climate'? These gods of science can only 'study' that which they can see ... the flesh body, and it returns to the dirt from which it came ... the soul/spirit intellect is what makes the flesh body alive, and it returns back to the Sender when the flesh dies. Surely, you do not 'believe' souls and their spirit intellect evolve?
Like post #7, I, too, am interested in hearing how you think sexual reproduction cold develop by natural selection.
These people have no imagination. What they should be looking at is how sexual reproduction is almost impossible to evolve out once it has appeared. It never goes back the other way.
Interesting when one demands “proof” when their own claims and assertions also have no proof! Evolution as now taught is devoid of proof... it consist solely of various speculations, antidotes and at its root bold proclamations. Evolution can’t prove how the first cell emerged, how DNA happened or how the origin of the sexes occurred. We just know it did!
One of the #RustyIronies in the current “debate” is the evolutionist will admit they don’t know how life began... but with certitude and arrogance, declare how it didn’t... an Intelligent Creator. If it were science, its adherents would not go apoplectic when questioned then demand opposing views be silenced! That ain’t science, its dogma and ideology.
The third problem is the one I always point out and nobody has ever offered a satisfactory answer to it. It’s really the fatal flaw of the entire hypothesis.
The first two at least could speculatively have a solution, for example if you theorized that the earliest species already had the capability for both sexual and asexual reproduction, and some descendants lost one ability, while other descendants lost another. That explanation might work, but it would demand a radical reworking of the “evolutionary tree”.
I’m so excited about this subject!
“Evolution cant prove how the first cell emerged, how DNA happened or how the origin of the sexes occurred. We just know it did!”
“Proof” to an evolutionist means stating the conclusion you desire first, then finding a way to make a semantic argument that appears to show a possible way that conclusion might be true, while ignoring any arguments that might show it to be false.
[[You claim to be a Bible believing Christian, yet deny the power of God,]]
Exactly- a god like that is an impotent god- not an Omnipotent God- and a god like that is also a liar because God said in His word He created man and woman- but if evolution occurred, then the word of God is a lie
I certainly don’t serve a lying impotent god who somehow managed to give nature miraculous supernatural abilities to ‘create’
’Proof’ to an evolutionist means stating the conclusion you desire first, then finding a way to make a semantic argument that appears to show a possible way that conclusion might be true, while ignoring any arguments that might show it to be false.”
__________________________________________________________
Ya nailed it Boogieman! They do same with Global Warming (Climate Change on cold days).
[[Proof to an evolutionist means stating the conclusion you desire first, then finding a way to make a semantic argument that appears to show a possible way that conclusion might be true, while ignoring any arguments that might show it to be false.]]
Well put- worth repeating because that is exactly what happens- I might add that they also attack the character of anyone who puts up possible counterarguments to their hypothesis- calling them unscientific/ psuedoscientists- and all manner of derogatory names- For many- this amounts to ‘scientific debate’
“Natural selection OBVIOUSLY MUST HAVE “selected” from genderless asexual replication the DNA information necessary for evolving the very first male and female forms necessary for sexual reproduction.”
Can you prove THAT?
I’m borrowing what you said to put in my profile so that i don’t forget how you worded it- I’ll of course give you the credit- my scatter brain has trouble remembering things- hoep you don’t mind? If you do, I won’t put it in there?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.