‘Explaining the origin of sex is widely recognized as a major dilemma after 150 years of attempts to answer it by some of the world’s leading evolutionists. Since Darwin revolutionized the world with his theory, this “masterpiece of nature” is acknowledged as one of evolutionists’ most difficult evolutionary problems, second only to the origin-of-life problem.[1]
Sexual differences are widespread in animals, but no single rule explains them.
The dominant theory is that asexual reproduction somehow slowly evolved into sexual reproduction. However, the evidence is both overwhelming, and widely recognized even by evolutionists, that evolution by small steps cannot bridge the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction cannot occur until both functional and compatible male and female reproductive systems exist. If any part of any component does not exist, reproduction will not occur. Nonetheless, evolutionists continue to look for ways to solve the problem of the origin of sex. One current example is a study by Yadav et al.[2] This study, rather than solve the problem, actually illustrates how difficult it is.
Evolutionists not only readily admit that “eukaryotic sexual reproduction is a mystery,” but also that the “ubiquity of eukaryotic sexual reproduction is a mystery.” In other words, the fact that eukaryotic sexual reproduction exists everywhere in life, from invertebrates to vertebrates, from plants to insects and animals must be explained. Furthermore, a variety of very different types of eukaryotic sexual reproduction systems are observed (see list below). For example, fungi “undergo alternative modes of sexual reproduction (unisexual, pseudosexual, and parasexual) in the laboratory and in nature that share features with alternative sexual processes observed in animals and plants (parthenogenesis, hybridogenesis, gynogenesis, and apomixis).”[3]
Most animals, including humans, after birth live out their entire lives and reproduce as either one sex or the other. With some animals, and many plants, a variety of sex types exist. These will now be briefly described to illustrate the problem this poses for evolution.
The Basic Kinds of Sexual Designs
Unisexual refers to an organism that can reproduce without requiring both male and female gametes. Unisexual plants’ flowers contain either stamens or carpels, but not both. Examples in the plant kingdom include papaya, cucumber, maize, tapioca, pumpkin, musk melon, castor bean, birch, pine (using cones), and watermelon.
Bisexual plant flowers contain both stamens and carpels and require both male and female gametes to reproduce. Common examples include rose, sunflower, hibiscus, lily, and mustard. Attempts to determine patterns related to why some plants can reproduce unisexually, while others require bisexual support, have failed.
Simultaneous hermaphroditism exists in a single organism which has both types of reproductive organs when mature. Consequently, they produce both male and female gametes. In simultaneous hermaphrodites, self-fertilization is possible in some species, but absent in others. Examples include vascular plants, worms, snails, slugs, barnacles, bryozoans (moss), and trematodes (flukes).
Sequential hermaphroditism produces eggs (female gametes) and sperm (male gametes) at different stages in their life. The change from one sex to another is a normal event as part of the organism’s reproductive cycle. The change from male to female is called protandry or protandrous hermaphroditism, and from female to male is called protogyny or protogynous hermaphroditism. Sequential hermaphroditism is actually common in many fish, gastropods, and certain plants.
Bidirectional hermaphrodites possess the capacity for sex change in either direction, male to female and female to male, an alternation potentially repeated several times during the organism’s lifetime.
Pseudosexualincludes animals that experience a tertiary physical attraction which mimics sexual attraction but no transfer of gametes occurs. The problem with this behavior is that it does not normally involve successful reproduction.[4]
Parasexualreproduction is a system that results in the recombination of genes from different individuals, but does not involve meiosis nor the formation of a zygote by fertilization as in sexual reproduction. The main examples include fungi and many unicellular organisms.[5]
Parthenogenesis, is a form of reproduction in which an egg develops into an embryo without being fertilized by sperm. It usually results in the development of a female; and very rarely males. Rotifers, along with several insect species, including aphids, bees, wasps, and ants can reproduce by parthenogenesis.
Hybridogenesis, also called sexual parasitism, involves the selective transmission of one of the parental genomes, while the other genome is renewed by mating with the corresponding species. [6]
Gynogenesisis a system of asexual reproduction that requires the presence of sperm but not the contribution of its DNA. The paternal DNA dissolves, or is destroyed by another means, before it can fuse with an egg. The egg cell then is able to develop, unfertilized, into an adult using only maternal DNA. Most gynogenesic animals are fish or amphibians. Why this reproductive mode even exists, given that it combines the disadvantages of both asexual and sexual reproduction, remains another unsolved problem in evolutionary biology.[7]
Androgenesisis the male equivalent of gynogenesis, where the father is the sole contributor of DNA. Thus a zygote is produced with only the paternal nuclear genes.[8]
Apomixisis asexual reproduction in which seeds are produced from unfertilized ovules. Examples include the genera Crataegus (hawthorns), Amelanchier (shadbush), Sorbus (rowans and whitebeams), Rubus (brambles or blackberries), Poa (meadow grasses), Nardus stricta (doormatgrass), Hieracium (hawkweeds) and Taraxacum (dandelions).
Attempts to Explain the Variety of Reproductive Methods Fail
In their PNAS paper (ref. 2), the authors attempt to theorize how and why organisms could have evolved so many different systems for mating-type determination. This, they claim, could advance the understanding of the evolution-of-sex problem itself. Actually, their attempt creates additional major difficulties for understanding the evolution of sex. For example, they write:
the systems by which sex is defined are highly diverse and can even differ between evolutionarily closely related species. While the most commonly known form of sex determination involves males and females in animals, eukaryotic microbes can have as many as thousands of different mating types for the same species. Furthermore,… several examples are also present among vertebrates suggesting that alternative modes of sexual reproduction evolved multiple times throughout evolution.[9]
It is widely recognized that the evolution of sex is an enormous problem: “no other problem has sowed as much confusion” as have attempts to explain the origin of sexual reproduction.[10] As Richard Dawkins asked, “why did sex, that bizarre prevision of straightforward replication, ever arise in the first place? … This is an extremely difficult question for evolutionists to answer” which he admitted he was “going to evade” due to “the difficulty which theorists have with explaining the evolution of sex.”[11] The late Lynn Margulis added in the introduction of her book on sex was so difficult that “becoming sexual [beings] is one [topic] which we will try to steer well clear of throughout this book.”[12]
How Yaiv et al., in their PNAS Article Deal with the Origin of Sex Problem
Yaiv et al. proposed that the variety of sex behaviors they documented did not evolve from some hypothetical original sexual reproduction system, but rather evolved multiple times. They openly stated that “sexual reproduction evolved multiple times throughout evolution.” The problem is, if sex is unlikely to have evolved once, it is far more unlikely to have evolved as many as 12 different times to explain the different sexual systems listed by Yaiv and noted above.
The authors’ phraseology implies that animals can choose their method of reproduction, as if it were a conscious choice made by the organism. They write,
some species have found alternatives to sexual reproduction, and prefer to grow clonally and yet undergo infrequent facultative sexual reproduction. These organisms are mainly invertebrates and microbes.[13]
Summary
Most evolutionists believe that evolution explains the origin of all types of sexual reproduction but struggle to determine when, how, and why sex evolved. The PNAS paper reviewed here is no exception. All past attempts fail, and the paper reviewed here, published in a leading American science journal, is another example of the norm. Now evolutionists have to explain the evolution of over a dozen types of sexual reproduction. But they must admit that sexual reproduction is evolutionarily conserved, meaning that, when examined historically, it has been shown to have not changed.[14] In other words, no evidence exists that any of the sexual systems the authors discussed have evolved. All evolutionists can do is attempt to speculate how one sex system could have evolved into another reproductive method.
References
[1] Trivers, Robert. The evolution of sex: A review of the masterpiece of Nature: The evolution and genetics of sexuality. The Quarterly Review of Biology 58(1):62-67, March 1983.
[2] Yaiv, Vikas, et al. On the evolution of variation in sexual reproduction through the prism of eukaryote microbes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(10). 3 March 2023; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2219120120.
[4] Dias, Brian, and David Crews. Regulation of pseudosexual behavior in the parthenogenetic whiptail lizard, Cnemidophorus uniparens. Endocrinology 149(9):4622–4631, September 2008.
[5] Mishra, Abhishek, et al. Parasexuality of Candida species. Frontiers in Cell Infection Microbiology 11:796929; doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.796929, 2021.
Luke 11:28“But he said, Yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”
‘Our senses link us to the world around us and enable us to interact with the world. While most people believe that our sense of sight is the highest of the senses and the most marvelous in design, our sense of hearing is no less marvelous.
When a sound strikes your ear, your eardrum vibrates with the sound waves, fast or slow, soft or hard. These variations in vibration provide us with important information about the nature of the sound we are hearing. Some sounds produce a vibration in the eardrum as small as a billionth of a centimeter – only one-tenth the diameter of a hydrogen atom! There are three tiny bones in the middle ear called the hammer, anvil and stirrup. They pick up the vibrations from the eardrum, amplify them and send them on to the cochlea. The cochlea is filled with about 25,000 tiny hair cells that finally turn the vibrations into electrical signals that are sent on to the brain.
Our hearing is designed to be more sensitive to high-pitched sounds than to lower sounds. If we had just a little more sensitivity to lower-pitched sounds, we would continuously be distracted by the internal sounds of our body, including the blood rushing through our arteries. In fact, to help prevent this, there are no blood vessels at all in that part of the ear where vibrations are turned into electrical impulses. The body supports life in these tissues by constantly bathing them in dissolved nutrients.
Vestigial organs are thought by evolutionists to be useless organs. Here is what one evolutionist says.
‘A “vestigial structure”or “vestigial organ” is an anatomical feature or behavior that no longer seems to have a purpose in the current form of an organism of the given species. Often, these vestigial structures were organs that performed some important functions in the organism at one point in the past.
However, as the population changed due to natural selection, those structures became less and less necessary until they were rendered pretty much useless. They are believed to be leftovers, only vestiges of the past.
Slow Evolutionary Process
Evolution is a slow process, with changes in species happening over hundreds or thousands if not millions of years, depending on how significant the change is. Although many of these types of structures would disappear over many generations, some keep being passed down to offspring because they do no harm—they aren’t a disadvantage for the species—or they have changed function over time. Some are present or functioning only during the embryonic stage of fetal development, or maybe they just have no function as we get older.
That said, some structures that were once thought of as vestigial are now thought as useful, such as the whale pelvis or the human appendix. As with many things in science, the case isn’t closed. As more knowledge is discovered, the information we know is revised and refined.’https://www.thoughtco.com/about-vestigial-structures-1224771
However, were these organs ever useless? Here’s what two creationists say.
‘First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential.
Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation. However the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e. those which are increasing in complexity.
Wings on birds that do not fly?
There are at least three possibilities as to why ostriches, emus, etc have wings:
a) They derived from smaller birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes; acquisition of new characters, requiring new DNA information, is impossible.
b) The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (I’ve seen emus run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional that allow these birds to move their wings?
c) It is a result of ‘design economy’ by the Creator. Humans use this with automobiles, for example. All models might have mounting points for air conditioning, power steering, etc. although not all have them. Likewise, all models tend to use the same wiring harness, although not all features are necessarily implemented in any one model. In using the same embryological blueprint for all birds, all birds will have wings.
Pigs with two toes that do not reach the ground?
Does this mean that the shorter toes have no function? No one has demonstrated this. Pigs spend a lot of time in water / muddy conditions for cooling purposes. Perhaps the extra toes make it easier to walk in mud (a bit like the rider wheels sometimes seen on long trucks which only touch the road when the truck is heavily loaded). Or perhaps the muscles attached to the extra toes give strength to the ‘ankle’ of the pig.
This is answered in Bergman and Howe’s book “Vestigial Organs” are Fully Functional (below right). Males have nipples because of the common embryological plan followed during early embryo development. Embryos start out producing features common to male and female — again an example of ‘design economy’. Nipples are a part of this design economy. However, as Bergman and Howe point out, the claim that they are useless is debatable.
What is the evolutionist’s explanation for male nipples? Did males evolve (devolve) from females? Or did ancestral males suckle the young? No evolutionist would propose this, so males nipples are not evidence for evolution or evidence against creation.
Why do rabbits have digestive systems that function ‘so poorly that they must eat their own feces’?
This is an incredible proposition. One of the most successful species on earth would have to be the rabbit! The rabbit’s mode of existence is obviously very efficient (what about the saying ‘they breed like rabbits’?). Just because eating feces may be abhorrent to humans, does not mean it is inefficient for the rabbit! Indeed rabbits have a special pouch called the cecum, containing bacteria, at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid digestion. The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet, a hard one and a special soft one coming from the cecum. It is only the latter which is eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria in the cecum. In other words, this ability of rabbits is part of their design; it is not something they have learnt to do because they have ‘digestive systems which function so poorly’. It is part of the variety of design which speaks of creation, not evolution.
Legless lizards
It is quite likely that the legless lizards, etc. could have derived from the original created kind, and so the structures would be consistent with this. ‘Loss’ of a structure is of no comfort to evolutionists as they have to find a mechanism for creating new structures, not losing them, and there is no such mechanism to explain how evolution from ‘amoeba to man’ could occur. Genesis 3:14 suggests that snakes maybe once had legs. Brown (CRSQ26:54) suggests that monitor lizards may have been the precursors of snakes.
Adaptation and natural selection are a biological fact; evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms—it cannot create new information. For example, if reptiles have no genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, but not create new ones. If in a certain environment a lizard survives better with smaller legs, or no legs, then varieties with this trait will be selected for. This might be more accurately called devolution, not evolution.
It is known that the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs.
Hip bones in whales
These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females.
Ecclesiastes 10:1 “Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: [so doth] a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom [and] honour.”
Are you old enough to remember comedian Jimmy Durante who made frequent jokes about his, hmm, quite large nose? Well, those jokes and his nose gave him the nickname “Schnozzola”. While Jimmy’s nose made him very popular many if not most of us ‘…don’t often think about our sense of smell. While our noses are on the job all the time, we note an odor only when it is unusual. Most of the time, the scents around us contribute, unnoticed, to our overall impression of our surroundings.
It’s hard to remain tense at the beach. Simply the mention of the water and waves, the sand and sun brings back to memory the last trip to the beach and starts relaxing a person. However therapeutic these elements of the beach are, scientists have found that the one beach fixture that is probably most responsible for relaxing us is the smell.
The smelly chemical that utility companies put in natural gas so that we can smell leaks is methyl mercaptan. This chemical is also produced by rotting meat. The human nose is extremely sensitive to this smell. We can detect as little as one 400-billionth of a gram of it in a quart of air.
Doctors have long known that their noses are helpful in diagnosing disease. A person is brought into the emergency room in a coma. It’s very likely that the doctor will smell the patient’s breath as he tries to discover the problem. A sweet smell could indicate diabetes. The smell of ammonia could indicate a kidney malfunction. Arsenic poisoning smells like garlic. Diphtheria can be identified by a sickeningly sweet odor, and people with the plague smell like apples. A patient who smells like freshly baked bread may have typhoid.
Proverbs 3:7-8“Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.”
‘You’re not feeling well, and you have a fever. Is your increased body temperature good for you or should you try to lower it?
Medical researchers are learning what happens in the body when we develop a fever. They say that the body’s fever response is usually a very important part of our body’s defense against disease. Normally, the body’s temperature varies throughout the day. If the body’s temperature drops below 80° or climbs higher than 108° for a prolonged period, death usually results. Your body has a thermostat, called the hypothalamus, to keep its temperature within that range.
When disease germs are detected in your bloodstream, your white blood cells release a chemical called EP. EP quickly makes its way to the hypothalamus, where it raises the setting of your thermostat. This increase in temperature can make your body increase its production of T cells by 20 times or more to fight bacterial infection. It also increases the production of blood chemicals that fight viruses. EP also blocks bacteria’s ability to make use of the free iron in your blood at just the time bacteria are most in need of that iron. Even iguanas and fish are known to raise their body temperature when ill by moving into warmer environments.
Does the fever response just accidentally happen to help fight infection or was it designed to work the way it does? Clearly we must thank God for this cleverly designed defense against disease.’ https://creationmoments.com/sermons/heating-for-health-2/
‘Humans still evolving, claim scientists, according to Flinders University News and SciTech Daily 8 October 2020, BBC Science Focus and Science Alert 9 October 2020, Interesting Engineering 11 October 2020, and Journal of Anatomy published online 10 September 2020 doi:10.1111/joa.13224.
Researchers at Flinders University and University of Adelaide have found an increase in the number of adults who have an artery named the median artery in their forearms. This artery is formed during embryonic development and does a very important task in supplying the growing forearm and hand. But in most people it disappears as the two main arteries of forearm, the radial and ulnar arteries, develop and take over.
The research team found median arteries were present in 26 of the 78 forearms of adult bodies donated to the medical college in 2015 and 2016. Most of the bodies were from people born in the first half of the 20th century. The researchers checked older records and found that only 10% of people born in the 1880s had a median artery.
According to Teghan Lucas of Flinders University, “This increase could have resulted from mutations of genes involved in median artery development or health problems in mothers during pregnancy, or both actually. If this trend continues, a majority of people will have a median artery of the forearm by 2100.”
Maciej Henneberg, a professor of medicine at Adelaide University and member of the Institute of Evolutionary Medicine at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, commented: “This is micro evolution in modern humans and the median artery is a perfect example of how we’re still evolving because people born more recently have a higher prevalence of this artery when compared to humans from previous generations.”
Editorial Comment: In spite of the BBC’s claim that “Humans are evolving an extra artery in the arm” no extra artery is evolving. All humans possess a median artery in their early development, so no new structure has evolved.
In case you are thinking that having three arteries in the forearm would be an evolutionary gain, it isn’t. There is no benefit from having a median artery when you have two other fully functional arteries, and for some people it is associated with carpal tunnel syndrome – a painful condition of the hand.
They only reason this study was reported so widely in general science news is because of the claim ‘humans are evolving’. If the statistics quoted in this study do represent a real change in the number of people retaining this artery into adulthood, then the explanations given by Tegan Lucas but not reported widely in the media are probably true, i.e. the cause is either loss of genetic control, or the effect of disease. Both of these are degeneration, not evolution! Such findings are another reminder that human beings, like all living things, are going downhill, not evolving upwards.’https://creationfactfile.com/6103/humans-still-evolving/
whatyareckon 