Evidence for God from Science

So how did evolution randomly figure this one out? It would seem a unguided process like evolution would cause incompatibility.

Evolution is not an unguided process.

The basic idea is that incompatible male and female sex organs would not evolve as transmission to the next generation via incompatible sex organs doesn't work. Males and females with sex organs largely incompatible with the rest of the species may arise but they are unlikely to go forth and multiply. An evolution of incompatible sex organs would imply either extinction or a branch to another method.

The only way such a thing is possible to my knowledge is by intelligent design. Where the sex organs are incompatible intelligent agents such as humans can bridge the organ gap with a syringe, a petri dish, a freezer and a steady hand. Incompatible sex organs are really only an issue when you don't have intelligent designers around. IVF seems to be at the forefront of incompatible sex organs and I'm hoping the agents in charge are intelligent as I'm hoping for a niece or nephew.

The basic nuts and bolts of evolution from what I gather is that it is not a random unguided process. It is composed of two main factors; mutation & selection. Mutations happen due to a variety of factors & occur within the genome, the result of the mutations are then tested against the environment.

I don't keep up with origins of sex literature these days but one theory that got me a while back was the viral origin of sexual reproduction. Electron micrographs of viruses injecting their genome into hosts are a foot rub and Marvin Gaye record away from being romantic.

Sexual reproduction has no definitive method of formation. Within the scientific community, there are several different hypotheses as to how it could have evolved from asexual ancestors. This wikipedia article sums it up fairly well, pointing out the advantages it brings to a species and also discussing various possible origins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... production

Swimmy wrote:So how did evolution randomly figure this one out? It would seem a unguided process like evolution would cause incompatibility.

Random mutation is NOT the only method of evolution and random ( in terms of scientific wording) doesn't mean random like we tend to use it.
Much like the term theory in science doesn't mean what it means when people use it outside of science.
And evolution doesn't "figure" anything out, the living cells "figure it out".
As for incompatibility, seems to work just fine

Consider ducks:

Good introducktion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/scien ... wanted=all
The anatomy of ducks is especially bizarre considering that 97 percent of all bird species have no phallus at all. Most male birds just deliver their sperm through an opening.


the technical bits:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... .2009.2139
Abstract

Coevolution of male and female genitalia in waterfowl has been hypothesized to occur through sexual conflict. This hypothesis raises questions about the functional morphology of the waterfowl penis and the mechanics of copulation in waterfowl, which are poorly understood. We used high-speed video of phallus eversion and histology to describe for the first time the functional morphology of the avian penis. Eversion of the 20 cm muscovy duck penis is explosive, taking an average of 0.36 s, and achieving a maximum velocity of 1.6 m s−1. The collagen matrix of the penis is very thin and not arranged in an axial-orthogonal array, resulting in a penis that is flexible when erect. To test the hypothesis that female genital novelties make intromission difficult during forced copulations, we investigated penile eversion into glass tubes that presented different mechanical challenges to eversion. Eversion occurred successfully in a straight tube and a counterclockwise spiral tube that matched the chirality of the waterfowl penis, but eversion was significantly less successful into glass tubes with a clockwise spiral or a 135° bend, which mimicked female vaginal geometry. Our results support the hypothesis that duck vaginal complexity functions to exclude the penis during forced copulations, and coevolved with the waterfowl penis via antagonistic sexual conflict.

Anyone could imagine that a form might accidentally arise and they can further imagine that it may have a functional advantage over something else. The more important question is how such a form can be repeated.
Evolutionists have no problem performing the imagination part of a solution as long as it only involves an explanation of how a forms change might occur or how a forms selection may be rationalized. However, neither mutation or selection have any power without a system to allow for the replication of the form.
So for those who wish to question the validity of the evolutionary model you need to first question how repeatable form functions and came to exist. If the system that allows for the repeating of form is intelligently designed then it is no longer a question of whether a design would need to evolve.
Another highly important question requiring an answer is how much can form vary before it reaches a limitation. Without this knowlege we can imagine anything occuring from molecules to man. So, ultimately it is nonsensical to question how a form can be imagined to occur if the only evidence required to back its validity is simply a rationale of change and selection. If such things are your only consideration then evolution is a minimal rational answer. If however, you come to realise that control of form in life is not simply answerable by change and selection then you must look further at the functionality of how form can be repeated. To understand this part of the puzzle would most likely answer whether change and selection are able to affect the system in the way evolutionists imagine it can.