Many call it the "queen of evolutionary problems" – the inability to even remotely explain the origin of sex using evolutionary rationale. And yet, questioning this glaring issue is prohibited by members of the evolution cult, many of whom argue that the mere act of discussing the matter with an open mind breaches Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state.
Writing about this hypocrisy, former law professor LaGard Smith, who used to teach at Pepperdine University, reveals some specifics as to what would have been necessary within the evolutionary model for humanity to have begun.
"Given the unique nature of gendered, sexual meiosis compared with non-gendered, asexual mitosis, the first-ever generation of sexual reproduction would have required 1) a never-before-seen male organism and a novel female organism, 2) magically having compatible chromosomes, and 3) a death-defying process of precisely halving their chromosomes, mixing them together in a revolutionary way, and then recombining to produce, not a clone (as in asexual replication), but a unique offspring unlike any on the planet," Smith writes.
This is quite the tall order, and one so rationally and scientifically motivated that even the staunchest evolutionist would be remiss to accuse it of stemming from religious convictions. In truth, the evolutionary theory itself fails to address these aspects of how human beings came to exist, and it's the evolutionary theorists who maintain the burden of proof in explaining it using their own methods.
The problem is that they can't, and nobody is willing to talk about it. Public schoolchildren are indoctrinated into evolutionary theory without ever being offered even a rudimentary explanation as to how and why humans exist. They're simply shown the "tree of evolution" and told that it's absolute truth, no questions asked.
"Natural selection could not possibly have provided simultaneous, on-time delivery of the first compatible male/female pair of each of millions of sexually-unique species," adds Smith.
And this doesn't even touch on the evolutionary magic that would have had to take place in order for the first man and woman who "evolved" to have done so in the same geographic location along with a strong natural desire or instinct to mate. All of these factors would have had to been perfectly aligned, which is both a statistical and mathematical impossibility.
"Forget religion. Forget the Bible. Forget teaching creationism. On its own terms, the romanticized, politicized, (increasingly even theologized!) microbe-to-man evolution story presented as undeniable fact in the schoolroom is simply bad science," concludes Smith. "Why should anyone insist that students be taught bad science?"
Even skeptic Jerry Coyne, author of the book Why Evolution is True, admits that there's no valid explanation for any of this. Coyne says that even Charles Darwin, the "father" of evolution, never explained how one species is capable of splitting into two, which is why he jokes that Darwin's famous book The Origin of Species should have probably been called The Origin of Adaptation.
Coyne attempts to explain this himself by using the excuse of "geographic isolation," meaning that the many species that populate the earth were all in their own separate areas just with one another. But this, too, is impossible, seeing as how there would have had to have been far more isolating mountains, rivers, and lakes to contain the tens of millions of different species that now exist.
Be sure to check out LaGard Smith's book, Darwin's Secret Sex Problem: Exposing Evolution's Fatal Flaw – The Origin of Sex.
Sources for this article include: