Evolution is wrong because males and females would have to evolve separately

Homeschooling is a good idea considering what is being taught in schools. Those who use evolution as a tool have some simple things that they cannot validate: 1. It takes two (2) to tango, meaning that a male and a female must be present at the same time for evolution to continue - what is the probability of two of the same species evolving at the same exact instance in time? 2. If evolution were true, all the millions of missing links would be present today and it would be continuing.

What are you talking about? Evolution happens at the level of populations not individuals. If it sounds like a stupid idea that a species would “evolve” a male and independently “evolve” a female and they would mate and “start” a new species, you’re right. Nobody claims that is how evolution works though. All offspring are always the same species as their parents. But if you divide a population and put part of the population in a different environment, isolated from the rest of the population, given enough time, the split off population will adapt to its new environment and a new species may emerge that is no longer reproductively compatible with the other descendants of the original population living in the original environment.

There are thousands of transitional fossils you can view in museums.

3 Likes

Something else to consider is that some creatures can reproduce asexually simply by splitting in two, and some can reproduce both asexually and sexually. It certainly seems as though asexual reproduction would be the first form of reproduction to appear. But I think sexual reproduction allows for a faster rate of mutation and thus potentially a faster response to changes in the environment. So I think we’d expect animals with that capacity to take over a greater and greater percentage of the biome. But I’m no expert in any of this, just an interested lay person.

Also, some creatures can change their sex. In some species of fish, only the most aggressive and dominant individual will become male. Since sperm production is relatively cheap one is enough for the group. If that fish dies, the next most dominant/aggressive fish becomes male. It seems that males are essentially an add on package to the essential female body plan. So it isn’t that males and females must both evolve separately. Rather, an animal develops the capacity for sexual reproduction and then in some species there is specialization of animals which are born male or female. Of course there are other creatures like snails that are all hermaphrodites with every member possessing both the capacity to become impregnated and to impregnate others. It is easy to over generalize from the creature we know best -us- to the rest of the vast array of creatures on this planet. It really is fascinating to learn about the variety.

2 Likes

I don’t think it is faster mutation. Sexual reproduction allows for a much greater variation in offspring. A human couple could have 12 offspring and none of them would be identical to any of the others, excluding identical twins of course. You get to slice and dice the genes so to speak.

3 Likes

@Del_Ray Welcome to the group.

But you might want to learn the basics of evolution before you pronounce it broken.

3 Likes

God who made everything after its’ kind.

So you believe that something started by spliting and now it requires a male and female to reproduce.

Entrophy remains true, no creature changes into something else (alligators do not turn into birds) even though they may change in appearence, they are still the same being (dogs are still dogs), God made all things after their kind.

Evolution in the sense of one creature turning into another never existed, God made all creatrues after their kind.

If by “one creature turning into another” you mean that as a sudden appearance (allegator parents shocked to hatch a duckling baby) then you are absolutely right. Nobody who knows anything about evolution has ever claimed that such things happen. You are on the side of science when making that claim!

3 Likes

Isn’t this exactly what Christy explained to you in the first reply to you above, that every creature is the same kind as its parents and the kinds only change slowly and gradually? The word ‘after’ means ‘following’ or in other words, something is being patterned on what came before. This is really a perfect description of evolution.

Well, unless some of them died. That would be unfortunate. But we still have tons of them around! Which ones are you thinking of?

1 Like

Science/evolution says that “all” life started from chemicals meaning that one creature evolved into another meaning that alligators turned into birds.

No, Christy believes in all creatures evolved from a chemical at the beginning of evolution which means one creature turned into another creature.

Welcome to the forum. It’s considered rude here to put words in others’ mouths the way you just did by summarizing what you think Christy believes. It’s a higher standard of respect for each other than most of society holds to and one of the aspects of this forum I really appreciate.

Secondly, even supposing Christy did believe that, I still don’t see any contradiction to the Bible quote you used. Saying all creatures are made after their own kind is not remotely the same as saying those kinds can’t change over time.

2 Likes

From Christy: “There are thousands of transitional fossils you can view in museums.” So if I have her wrong, then I apologize.

"Evolution: states that all life began as a chemical. So to believe in “evolution”, it has to be a belief that one “thing” changed into another, but for the features of one creature’s looks to change (as the face of one man does not look like another) is a fact. Evolution (one creature changing into another) contradicts the Bible.

Mr Del_Ray, welcome to the forum. Actually, that’s something I learned on this site–evolution has to do with change of living things over time. However, the theory that the origin of life began as a chemical is different. It’s called abiogenesis. While there is lots of evidence about the process of change over time, the origin of life is way more contested. It’s not considered the same thing as evolution.

There’s quite a difference between believing that living things change over time without God, and that they change over time with God. Many Christians, especially overseas, believe that God changed life over time with the process of evolution. Some believe that He created life through abiogenesis. Others don’t. There is a broad spectrum.

Christy is a missionary in Mexico, so her time line is behind our Eastern Standard Time. She may be able to talk more when her community wakes up (I’m not sure where you live; I live in Michigan).

Blessings. May God bless our conversation so that we learn from each other.

1 Like

So if God creating things is mutally exclusive with beginning from chemicals, Adam must not really have been made from dust, right?

1 Like

According to the documentation that I have, all things were created in 6 litteral 24 hour days and God rested on the 7th.

  • Original: יום
  • Transliteration: Yowm
  • Phonetic: yome
  • Definition:
  1. day, time, year
    a. day (as opposed to night)
    b. day (24 hour period)
  2. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
  3. as a division of time 1b
    c. a working day, a day’s journey
    d. days, lifetime (pl.)
    e. time, period (general)
    f. year
    g. temporal references
  4. today
  5. yesterday
  6. tomorrow
  • Origin: from an unused root meaning to be hot
  • TWOT entry: 852
  • Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine
1 Like

Many Christians believe quite seriously that we are still in the sixth, seventh, or eighth days of creation, and these readings were not all invented after geology determined that the earth was ancient.

1 Like