Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 8 of 15

Posted by Gregg on Feb 26, 2012 in apologetics, Christian Faith, Creation, homeschooling |

Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Today’s Sexy Topic

Question number 8 in the Question Evolution campaign is, “How did sex originate?

Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction.  While discussing the advantages of a fully functional sexual reproductive system, don’t think that misleadingly implies that such is sufficient to explain its origin.

Given the facts, how could sexual reproduction ever gain enough advantage to be “selected” over asexual reproduction? How could mere physics and chemistry simultaneously invent the needed  complementary apparatuses for sexual reproduction to work?  Non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs.  “Nature” cannot forecast against future need and stockpile utterly superfluous apparatus until the day they are finally needed.

Why not “simple” asexual reproduction?  Why not even far more “simple” parthenogenesis?  There are breeds of reptiles, such as lizards in Texas, that are entirely female. They lay eggs that hatch into lizards that are essentially clones of the mother.  They seem to do very well, so what’s the point of sexual reproduction?  Where is the “evolutionary” advantage?

Speaking of advantage, sexual reproduction has many disadvantages.  Afterall, in either asexual reproduction or parthogenetic reproduction, 100% of the parent’s genetic material is passed on to subsequent generations.  In sexual reproduction, only half of each parent’s genetic material can possibly be passed on, a mere 50%.  How does “evolution” deem this advantageous?

It’s also very “costly” in terms of fitness to maintain sexual organs, to keep the male’s own immune system from destroying his own (genetically different) sperm cells, and the female’s immune system from destroying either the incoming spermatozoa or the (genetically different) offspring while gestating. Think of how vulnerable females are while gestating and immediately after bearing live young.  How does evolution account for any of this?

The biblical account of creation explains the origin of fully functioning sexual reproduction, from the start, in an optimal and genetically diverse population. Once the mechanisms are already in place, they have these advantages. But simply having advantages doesn’t remotely explain how they could be built from scratch. Hypothetical transitional forms would be highly disadvantageous, therefore natural selection would work against them. In many cases, the male and female genitalia are precisely designed to fit with each other, meaning that these mechanisms logically could not have independently “evolved”.

For more information about this topic, visit

The Truth

Believers in the Biblical account of Creation deny neither natural nor sexual selection. For example, we think it’s likely that sexual selection augmented natural selection in producing the different people groups (‘races’) from a single population of humans that were isolated after Babel.

The difference is that we recognize that selection can only  work on existing genetic information. Darwinists believe mutation provides new information for selection. But no known mutation has ever increased genetic information, although there should be many hundreds or thousands of examples observable today if mutation/selection were truly adequate to explain the goo-to-you hypothesis.

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.


Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Copyright © 2009-2017 Hallee the Homemaker All rights reserved.
Desk Mess Tripled v1.0 theme from

Copyright © 2009 - 2017 Hallee the Homemaker All Rights Reserved.