Being WOKE is something corporations have brought on board to sell their merchandise. However, there are some areas of the world where Wokeness will not be permitted and that is in those Islamic controlled nations. Sadly, the selling of a car or any product in the West will often include pushing the Sodomite lifestyle without any hesitation but not so in Muslim controlled nations! Why? Has the West divorced itself totally from any Biblical standard? It seems it has. Do we blame the non-Christian or should we blame the Christian? Well, I would blame us who have professed Christ as Saviour! We have not preached righteousness or sin enough. The Sodomite life is sin and Sodom is an example of that sin. Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
So, selling a BMW is different in the decadent West than it is in a controlled Islamic nation!!! Shame on us in the West!
‘What state is the church in when a Christian college fires a Christian lecturer for defending a Christian understanding of sexuality? This week, news broke of Dr Aaron Edwards, a lecturer at Cliff College, Derbyshire, a Methodist Bible college, who was sacked and even threatened with a counter-terrorism referral for sharing a tweet on human sexuality that went viral. The father of five was told that for sharing the Christian view of sexuality, he had brought “the college into disrepute.” Tim Dieppe is joined by Aaron on this week’s Round the Table, as well as Joe Boot, founder of the Ezra Institute, to discuss how changes in the UK Church’s doctrine on marriage and sexuality is leading to more confusion and cases like this. How are faithful Christians now to respond?’
‘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.
‘A Brisbane Christian school says it will withdraw its demand that families sign anti-gay and anti-trans enrolment contracts prior to the new school year.
The decision comes before a meeting with the Queensland schools accreditation board.
While Citipointe Christian College says it “deeply regrets” that the contracts made students feel discriminated against, the principal says the school has the right to maintain its ethos and the “freedom to continue to provide an education based on our shared beliefs”.
Those beliefs – and the statement parents were asked to sign – are taken from the school’s governing body, the International Network of Churches, and its formal “statement of faith”. It includes statements that homosexual acts were “immoral” and “offensive to God” and that transgender people would not be recognised.
The withdrawal of the contract comes after the prime minister, Scott Morrison, said he “did not agree with” the school’s use of the document.
Teachers have told Guardian Australia that the school principal, Brian Mulheran, this week had repeatedly doubled down on his decision to implement the contract. He released a video statement to parents on Tuesday defending the contracts and then gave families a two-week extension to sign.
The decision was made before a scheduled meeting of the state government’s statutory accreditation board, which assesses eligibility for government funding and monitors compliance with the Education Act.
The board has received a discrimination complaint about the contract.
It is also understood that dozens of students and families had already chosen to withdraw and have enrolled at the local state school.
Lawyers and others had said the contract was a clear breach of the Queensland anti-discrimination act. The state human rights commissioner, Scott McDougall, said organisations could not “contract out” their responsibilities under the act.
In a letter to families Mulheran said the school would work with the community to update the enrolment contract, but that no families would now be asked to sign the existing one.
A statement posted on the college website said the school would “continue to ensure that families are provided with information that is necessary to make informed choices about … our approach to teaching”.
“We deeply regret that some students feel that they would be discriminated against because of their sexuality or gender identity, and I apologise to them and their families on behalf of the college,” Mulheran said.
“As stated previously, the college does not and will not discriminate against any student because of their sexuality or gender identity. It is central to our faith that being gay or transgender in no way diminishes a person’s humanity or dignity in God’s eyes.
“It is also deeply distressing that some of our students have been vilified in the community simply for their religious beliefs or because they attend the college.”
Mulheran said society “gives freedom to people to be a part of groups with shared beliefs”.
“Citipointe has the freedom to maintain its Christian ethos and this is an essential part of Christian education and choice for parents. As a college established for religious purposes, we will continue to provide an education based on our shared beliefs.”
The Queensland education minister, Grace Grace, said she welcomed the decision and had called for it on a number of occasions.
Australia has followed the rest of the world’s Western nations by legalizing those of the same gender to ‘marry’. Will this have an affect on Christians?
‘Christians in Australia are looking to their Parliament for protection after a campaign to legalize same-gender marriage.
Australia conducted an unprecedented mail survey of voters and 62 percent of those returning the postal cards favored same-gender marriage.
The issue is being discussed now with a plan by Parliament to rush through a new law by early December when Parliament ends its 2017 session.
Despite the lopsided results the campaign does not reflect the views of many Austrialians, especially Christian believers in the country, says Jack Sonnemann, who heads the Australian Federation for the Family.
“We do have Christian activist groups here in the nation that are lobbying Parliament,” he says, “and trying to get some sanity into this situation to let the parliamentarians know that marriage should be as our marriage act proclaims: the voluntary union of one man and one woman entered into for life.”
The battle is on as Dean Smith, an openly homosexual Australian senator, has introduced a bill to limit those who refuse to take part in or recognize homosexual marriage, including pastors and their churches.
Another battle before lawmakers is the impact, if same-gender marriage is legalized, on those who oppose homosexual marriage, especially Christians.
Some senators, in fact, are pushing for amendments to protect business owners, no doubt aware of Christian bakers and others in the U.S. fighting – and losing – a legal battle to adhere to their beliefs despite sweeping laws.
‘Meet Prof Iain Benson, a Canadian expert on civic freedoms. He looks at what happened in Canada after the marriage laws changed, and what is happening now in Australia – and warns that Australia has none of the protections it needs if its people and institutions are to stay free.’
whatyareckon 