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.
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.
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!
bkmk
For #3, nothing says self-replication didn’t happen first and then the sexes evolved.
That said, the PRIMARY reason for evolution to not be believed in its current form is that a big bucket of chemicals that life is made from never seems to magically create life.
Take a big bucket of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon, and Phosphorus, and they simply do not form a DNA strand. The possible combinations of DNA are astronomical. Evolutionists claim a magical transformation happened by accident where these chemicals magically formed a DNA strand and life was born.