Evolution & Sex

[Believer]

I was watching a Discovery Channel program on sex. Now they go into it about the first law of evolution is to reproduce but also in Genesis, God tells Adam & Eve to be fruitful and mulitply. Discovery Channel suggests it was evolution that shaped us from monkeys 4-5 million/billion years ago to the human shape we have now. They also say how another number million/billion years that we will be sex machines. They say that we were made FOR sex. What is your thought on this? What is the evidence against evolution?

[Joel Freeman]

That sounds ridiculous to me. I think New Earth will come in less than 4 - 5 million/billion years.

[Mastermind]

I think the new earth is still billions of years away.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

They say that we were made FOR sex. What is your thought on this? What is the evidence against evolution?

The evidence against evolution is in the first sentence. We were MADE. Then, you have to realize that the chances of two genders evolving randomly at the same time, so that their sex organs can still work together, is entirely ridiculous. Natural selection keeps defects which would help something evolve (if it could) from becoming prominent by diluting the mutations in the gene pool.

[Kurieuo]

They say that we were made FOR sex. What is your thought on this? What is the evidence against evolution?

The evidence against evolution is in the first sentence. We were MADE.

Actually, to take it a step further, "made FOR" implies intelligence was involved. Natural material processes can never make something with a purpose "in mind." Therefore, the stupidity of what we were made for being set aside, if we were made "for sex," then who made us for that purpose?

Kurieuo.

[Prodigal Son]

the evidence against evolution is the fact that there's no evidence for it.

[Anonymous]

MADE for sex does not imply a divine creator, it implies that in order for intelligence to evolve sex had to come about to introduce more variation in creatures so some would have the correct traits to survive. We were made by our environment for sex. Before medical science creatures had to reproduce often because only the strong survived.

"Why sex? may have more to do with the ultimate molecular nature of life.
At the molecular level, as well as with a courting couple, two is a magic number for life, because the complex organic molecules that originated life and carry genetic info split into two halves, and each half can reconstitute itself into a new individual. ... life is a process that reduplicates very complicated organic molecules. In nonsexual reproduction of such molecules, the half molecules have to go off and assemble new 2nd halves 1 atom at a time.. in sexual reproduction the half molecule is not just out to fend for itself it is encased in its own cell called a gamete. ...the gamete is only half complete and finds another gamete with another half set of genetic material. ...note that in many seafaring species, the fertilization takes place outside the body: the gametes are simply sprayed into the water and the union takes place there. This is a powerful echo of the early history of life in Earth's sea water. ... we are familiar with male fishes fertilizing eggs laid by female fishes. The fertilized egg grows on its own until it produces a new set of gametes. ... the fertilized egg is a whole organism and most of the cells in the body are whole in the sense that they have a complete set of genetic material. ...their jobs from a molecular point of view are to simply to produce and protect the gametes... Sex thus saves the laborious process of reproducing DNA, RNA, and other genetic molecules 1 atom at a time in the wild. Sex may be explained not so much by its evolutionary consequences, which came after the fact, but by the very nature of the most complex organic molecules, with their two separate halves in our deepest being the nuclei of our cells. ...We tend to view sex from a land dwelling mammal's viewpoint, giving great emphasis to intercourse between males and females... ... from the molecular point of view, these are merely embellishments that allowed life to adapt to the harsher alien environment of land..." From The History of the Earth by William K. Hartmann and Ron Miller

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Survival of the fittest is a crock....because, if you look around, the strong and weak survive. We would be living in a world of vicious monsters if only the fittest survived. but we have bunny rabbits, and animals with poor defenses. And, the phrase is a tautology.

Talk about revisionist history....revises history to include evolution-something the past doesn't contain.

[Mastermind]

Kmart, there's more to fitness than being able to tear throats out.

[Anonymous]

Survival of the fittest is not a crock, it was a poor statement used because people had difficulty understanding the phrase"natural selection". Weak animals are still around because the "big monsters" aren't in direct competition with them. Simpler creatures survive because of their sheer ability to rapidly reproduce simple organisms. Thats comparing apples and oranges. Surely man can't wipe out all bacteria on the planet even if he tries, so we coexist. Many small creatures may die but the "fittest" of those small creatures carry on because they have the ability to get away from or outsmart its predator. You have to remember the higher on the food chain a species is the less of them there are and the less efficient they are using energy. The lower the species the higher the number and efficiency. That is what allows them to survive. But what Kmart talks about is coming true, due to advances in medicine. Man is rapidly gaining numbers that normally would not happen and is pushing other creatures into extinction. So their is proof of natural selection, we are destroying the planet.

[voicingmaster]

Is God-guided evolution out of the question? It seems logical. Like, instead of evolving randomly, we evolved with an intelligent being "steering the wheel".

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Natural selection, also, is a crock. It doesn't drive evolution, it sets evolution in park....so, strange and bizarre genetic mutations which cause problems are almost neutralized by being dilluted with normal DNA (and genetic mutations which are good don't occur...sure, bacteria are now resistant to anti-biotics, but only because the structure the antibody would attach you was deformed from a mutation, which kept the bacteria alive, but at the same time causing it to be less efficient).

And God driven evolution doesn't seem logical. Why would an all powerful God need billions of years to slowly start out with one cell and then over the eons upgrade? It would not be the work of an all powerful God, it would be the work of an all powerful Idiot. Also, that's not what God says He did8) . It degrades man by making him an animal...another problem.

[kateliz]

When I was ignorant of both evolution's "evidence" and progressive creationalism's evidence I had a theory I thought conclusively de-bunked "evil evolution". It was in the form of a question: "How could evolution create reproduction?" The answer: "It couldn't!" Cells dividing and all that is fine and dandy, but how did the same living organism come to evolve into something that could recreate itself in so many different ways? The complexity of many forms of reproduction in itself has one beg the question of how it could come about through natural selection. You need reproduction throughout all of evolutions steps. Could random mutations, (and we mean very random!) actually cause complex reproduction? Wouldn't things just die off before they were able to mutate to the point of being able to reproduce themselves? I've never heard this issue brought up by anyone but me, and that surprises me. And could plants really have the same origin of animals with regards to this? If so, how? And really, why don't we discuss the evolution of plants too? Never heard of that one brought up either. I think I'm going to make that into a new thread! Another theory I came up with that I thought proved evolution wrong: There are too many mistakes evolution would have to make in order to get so many things right. The odds declare that impossible in my book.

[voicingmaster]

And God driven evolution doesn't seem logical. Why would an all powerful God need billions of years to slowly start out with one cell and then over the eons upgrade? It would not be the work of an all powerful God, it would be the work of an all powerful Idiot. Also, that's not what God says He did8) . It degrades man by making him an animal...another problem.

So, you're a YEC? If you're not, and you're an OEC, can you explain why you accept God taking thousands/million/billions of years to create huamnity, but yet deem evolution illogical for an all powerful being?(I'm not refuting it, I just never really understood this view). As for making us animals, according to St. Augustine, Adam and Eve would be the first humans in they have a spirit. He would be evolving us to His image.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

There are too many mistakes evolution would have to make in order to get so many things right. The odds declare that impossible in my book.

The thing is, not only does evolution requires a bundle of mistakes, but these mistakes must randomly build UPON each other somehow. I've read that the statistic that 20 consecutive reactions could build upon each other is impossible (well beyond 1/10^50).