Sex: A Spicy Problem for Evolutionary Theory

[@chrispark2698]

The incredibly complex synergy required to enable male/female reproductive systems to function together is, by itself, an effective refutation of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Chemical "co-evolution" of such a complex system fundamental to all of life simply cannot be plausibly explained without an intelligent designer.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

As they say, a single living cell/a living creature is chicken/egg problem all the way down to the last protein.

[@crabb9966]

Because darwinism is false doesn't infer that there is an intelligent designer

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@crabb9966 "Imply". Yes, it does imply that, very much so. A cave painting implies a painter, and not wind and rain and clay splashing onto a wall.

[@mirziyodm]

​@@crabb9966 It's either a random, unguided process or a designed (by a conscious mind) process. Is there any option in-between?

[@stormythelowcountrykitty7147]

@@crabb9966 you are correct. I am a believer but I accept that just because Darwin is wrong does not mean Genesis is literally correct.

[@hgillung]

I remember taking biochemistry in pharmacy school and was blown away with complexity of the citric acid (Krebs Cycle) Glycolysis, Fatty Acid and Protein Synthesis. At the time I remember saying to myself there is absolutely no way this all happened by blind chance. Additionally, to my knowledge it is the only mechanism that has greater than 100% efficiency, all by accident, yeah right. I guess it all comes down to a person's world view. Great discussion. I look forward to part 2. I had never considered the sexual aspect of evolution. Fascinating points. Thank you!

[@canadiankewldude]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. God Bless

[@sliglusamelius8578]

I had those epiphanies all the time in physiology, biochemistry, embryology, genetics, etc. We live in a Disney World phantasmagoria of wonders the likes of which should make us awe-struck, but instead the scientists are screaming at us that it's all really very elementary, Dear Watson! There's nothing "elementary", even if you study the elementary table.

[@nil1473]

​@@sliglusamelius8578thank you for sharing the truth.. we need more people like u.. god bless everyone 🙏

[@nil1473]

Thank you for writing ur reason-based thoughts in appreciation of god's creation.. 🙏we need more people like u❤

[@KenJackson_US]

*HGillung:* _"... it is the only mechanism that has greater than 100% efficiency, ..."_ I don't understand. What does that refer to?

[@utopiabuster]

Dr. McLatchie is one of the top apologist this century. Always a pleasure to listen to. I'd like to add that not only is the origin of sex an evolutionary conundrum but so is mammalian and particularly primate/human reproduction itself, especially problematic for the darwinian paradigm. Consider the basic biology of the menstrual cycle which is highly coordinated, fine tuned, and requires the involvement of several structures. Even the slightest misstep can result in infertility, such as obesity and temperature variations. Very little is written about the evolution of sexual reproduction as if it is a forbidden topic among evolutionary biologist. Which tells you all you need to know about what is demonstrably a hard problem for naturalism. God Bless

[@KenJackson_US]

*Utopiabuster:* _"... the evolution of sexual reproduction as if it is a forbidden topic among evolutionary biologist."_ That makes sense. But how do you know? What indication is there of pushback for exploring it?

[@utopiabuster]

@KenJackson_US , Thank you for your interest. First off, I'm no Ph.D., which limits my access to academic resources. I won't and can't say there's any "push back". I will say that reproductive complexity is problematic for the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm. And they know it. No disrespect to Dr. McLatchie, but he's just touching the surface countering dichotomous sex origins. I haven't researched sex evolution for some time, but when I did, I could only find one book in the topic written in 1974. That goes to show how much effort goes into the subject compared to origin of life research. Just imagine how many enzymes it takes just to attach a fertilized egg to the uterine wall? Failure of any one will have a deleterious effect on the fetus. I would implore Dr. McLatchie, having the intellect and access to resources, to explore this line of argument for design Peace.

[@paradigmbuster]

There is also the desires and instincts related to it. Both the physical systems and mind instincts had to be there at the same time.

[@histreeonics7770]

Nope. There are hermaphroditic species that can self impregnate as well as impregnate any other member of the species. An individual who mutates to prefer mating with others over self has progeny with a broader range of genetic variety and as such is more likely to have some survive in different environments. So, the mental instinct to mate precedes the development of specializing to male or female. The same has been found to be the case for every claim of 'irreducible complexity' or requirement for simultaneous evolution that creationists have tried to claim disprove evolution.

[@AbidNasim]

why do biologists count DNA in terms of base pairs rather than information content. adenine bonds with thymine, and cytosine bonds with guanine. That's binary code, really.

[@zorot3876]

My understanding is that one strand containing half of the pairs is the complete code and although complimentary, the other is a complete backup and is used when errors are encountered during replication for example.

[@canadiankewldude]

*_Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me._* *_KJB_*

[@mh4zd]

I come from a long line of barnacles.

[@hgillung]

LOL

[@utopiabuster]

Bill, is that you?

[@mh4zd]

@@utopiabuster Ya. I didn't make it to last year's reunion. They wouldn't let me on the plane. Something about obscenity or something.

[@rubiks6]

I think you're related to the banana.

[@johnglad5]

No you do not. I recognize your sarcasm. You are made in God's image.

[@KenJackson_US]

His final thought reminds us that all of microbe-to-man evolution is based on the concept that Darwin described as "numerous, successive, slight modifications". If living cells were made of clay, that could work. Each slight change would be either good or bad. But there's a HUGE problem with this throughout the real designs of life, which are made up of well designed components that are themselves made up of well designed components. Hierarchies of well designed machines is the norm. The reality that molecular biologists have unfolded, revealed and documented in the past century doesn't fit Darwin's dream at all.

[@histreeonics7770]

Your argument fails because of its false premises of "well designed" components. Your "well designed" components are total crap compared to human designed systems. The error rate of execution in the microcontrollers I use is 1 in 10^12, many biological systems have failure rates in the 1 in 10^3, a factor of a billion worse. The error rate for mammalian embryos is more like 1 in 4. That gets rid of the "well" adjective. You have claimed 'design' which is what you are trying to prove. The analogies to human designs are rather poor, and analogy is never a valid component in a logical argument. Hierarchies of biological subsystems is not apparent. Concatenations are not hierarchies. Fractal similarity is present in biological systems, but that is not a hierarchy of designs, just a hierarchy of scales. Most slight changes are neither good nor bad, and a change that is good in some situation can be bad in others. There is not a single valid point in your post.

[@histreeonics7770]

The very first point falls to the fact that sex started way before there were males and females. Hermaphrodites reproduce sexually, not via cloning. Cloning limits the variety of an organisms offspring making the lineage more susceptible to extinction when the environment changes. Exchanging genes with other individuals leads to a greater variety of individuals in every lineage, and that increases the number of lineages that will survive an environmental change. A better statement of the actual issue is how did gender specialization of mature individuals develop. . There are species who can change their sex as an adult, adapting to changing conditions. From observations of such organisms (fish) one can determine the advantages and disadvantages of each gender with respect to getting their genes into the next generation. Only half of the population producing eggs is also immaterial when the clutch size is in the 100's. Changes in clutch size can readily deal with the nominal reduction by 50% of committing to gender. IE the size of the population is rather insignificant to preservation of the species when the organisms generate more than a replacement number of progeny during their lives. Is there any point in listening when the "conundrum" was solved decades ago?

[@marktapley7571]

None of the processes you allude to can happen unless the genetic information is already coded into the organism. None of them can add any additional information after inception. Male-female reproduction is irreducibly complex and the notion that this amazing feat occurs as the result of random chance makes about as much sense as a tornado hitting a junk yard could make a 747.

[@chitacarlo]

Tutto ciò che ci appare come un "disegno intelligente" è solo lo specchio del nostro tipo di intelligenza. Non abbiamo riferimenti di altri punti di vista. L'unico motore e necessità biologica è il tempo. Ricordiamoci che ogni strategia evolutiva è un esperimento aperto, la sua funzionalità o le sue caratteristiche vincenti sono temporanee anche se apparentemente (per noi) perfette.

[@alantasman8273]

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” In the beginning, starting with the creation week...God told Adam and Eve (the mother of all living) to have sex. Sexual compatibility was by design ...created by the greatest designer who making them male and female...also threw sexual ecstasy into the mix ...What an awesome God.

[@rubiks6]

What if evolution did not happen at all? Intelligent design posits an Intelligent Designer, and this Intelligent Designer would necessarily have the attributes of God. What if the creatures were created by fiat as the Book that is called "The Word of God," says? That certainly would make the sexual reproduction issues easier. Sloppy thinking leads to sloppy solutions. Evolutionary theory is really sloppy. The evolution of sexual reproduction is a puzzle invented by scientists so scientists would have a puzzle to solve. It's a lot like a chess puzzle that is totally artificial but is invented to have a puzzle to solve - the chess position was never part of any real game and evolution of species is not a real-life scenario.

[@jacob.tudragens]

Nice reference to the Gordian knot! "The simplest answer is usually the correct answer!"

[@jacob.tudragens]

Evolution is a concept struggling to become a theory and unable to even attain the title of hypothetical!

[@barnydino317]

Gros Michel

[@chaotickreg7024]

This is so funny to me. The creationist argument is like this. "Gravity is a heavy problem for physics (therefore God explains all physical phenomena)." "Dark Matter is an ethereal problem for cosmologists (therefore God is omnipresent)." "The sunrise is a beautiful problem for Heliocentrists (therefore the Sun orbits God's Creation)." And these are so funny to me because science just has to solve to problem and the ID argument is gone. I mean surely they'll move the goalposts and then try to suggest the burden of proof is on the atheists, but the Gaps of God are getting smaller and smaller. "It's too comlicated for me to possibly figure out" is not an argument.

[@coltclouse7561]

So instead of God of the gaps your relying on the future knowledge of mankind of the gaps. This dosent make it any less of a fallacy. Mabey we will solve it one day. But saying they are just unsolved problems is fallacious

[@chaotickreg7024]

@@coltclouse7561 I actually think this particular problem is mostly solved if you look at it. They say you need 4 building blocks of cells and we have them in pre-biotic conditions, it's all laid out, I think we just need to demonstrate a protocell in a lab to really make it conclusive and that could happen in the next decade. It's not even putting it to the future, I dare say there's already sufficient evidence that abiogenesis is possible, and proving it naturally probable or possible in a lab is just extra stuff for you stubborn folk. I was making an analogy to the past to show how clumsy you guys will look after this is over, you're going to have to pick up your goalposts and move them, you're going to learn your lesson *again* that science always beats religion at describing reality.

[@c-qpo]

@@coltclouse7561spot on…and another thing is that many of the explanations they have given are not really things they have “figured out” but are really just rescuing devices..cleverly devised excuses for things that don’t fit their model(well maybe this happened)..when you add up all of those they don’t even have as many answers as they claim to have..

[@KenJackson_US]

​@@chaotickreg7024: _"They say you need 4 building blocks of cells and we have them in pre-biotic conditions, ..."_ You've been lied to. One of those building blocks are nucleotides. Do you know what a nucleotide is? Have they _ever_ formed in nature outside of a living organism? But even if they magically formed, there would have had to be trillions of them in close proximity randomly bonding correctly into chains. Even so, no one has ever designed a "replicator" that fully replicates. Didn't happen. It's a wishful theory, not science.

[@KenJackson_US]

​@@chaotickreg7024: _"... science just has to solve to problem and the ID argument is gone."_ Hardly! In fact the overwhelming weight of molecular biology confirms the fact that life was designed and created.