Alfa Seltzer:

Do you think consciousness defines life? That until life's chemical elements gain consciousness, they cannot be considered to be alive?

No i do not think so. Not all life is conscious.

And certainly there is much life that is not self conscious. Plants, for example.

Deep Sight:

No i do not think so. Not all life is conscious.

Well, that's what the fool (loveoftruth) you were praising was insinuating. And plaetton has been trying to say that abiogenis may produce life, albeit an unconscious one. So what is life?

Alfa Seltzer:

Well, that's what the fool (loveoftruth) you were praising was insinuating.

He made the point that life is not a mere mixture of physical elements or compounds such as amino acids.

That's what he was getting at.

Deep Sight:

He made the point that life is not a mere mixture of physical elements or compounds such as amino acids.

That's what he was getting at.

What is life?

Alfa Seltzer:

What is life?

Well for the purpose of this discussion let us work with the attributes MR NIGER D.

Deep Sight:

Well for the purpose of this discussion let us work with the attributes MR NIGER D.

Alfa Seltzer:

MR NIGER D is an acronym for the attributes of living things - Movement Respiration Nutrition Irritability Growth Excretion Reproduction Death.

plaetton:

You made no sense. You just grabbed names and quotes from here and there and to you it makes sense. Show us in your own words, not others, how it shatters the plausible scenarios I have put forward.

As expected, water through a sieve. I first, in my OWN words stated how your talk of Oparin was nonsense. No OOL researcher takes his work seriously. RNA world is the in thing. Go to Wikipedia for confirmation.

plaetton:
I keep saying that you guys are deaf and dumb. the whole theory of Abiogenesis is to try to show plausibility. They did their best simulate a prehistoric environmental condition. They did not have to get it 100% right.
They just wanted to show scientific plausibility. Period. And they did.

Damn inane ! Read up the sub-section early earth conditions. Note the conditions between 3.7 and 4.2 Ga (billion yeras ago) and tell me whether that has been simulated. Keep in mind that the late heavy bombardment supposedly occurred in that time frame. Prediction: plaetton ignores this or obfuscates the import.

plaetton:
Any one with an open mind would know that 3.5 billion years ago, the earth and our solar system could have been in another part of the galaxy as the sun carries us along her 250 billion years cycle around the galactic center.
So the conditions could have been totally different and perhaps, unique.

The conditions are stated in Wikipedia. I couldn't care where else in the galaxy our
Solar system was. Even that is much debatable. WHAT MATTERS is conditions prevailing on earth.

plaetton:
It is also possible, again for any one with an open mind, that the actual first process that generated life could have very well occurred in another planet or in another galaxy before being accidentally or deliberately transported to earth via meteorites or comets.

Oh my God ! Back to Francis Crick's panspermia (directed or whatever). I hope you won't bring in UFO's and pot-bellied Martians as well, twould be ludicrous for a doffer who scoffs at Bible stories. Google Lee Kronin and TED. In Kronin's TED talk he rightly stated that panspermia shifts the problem back. You are so out of line with OOL research you hardly know what's considered in OOL research. Take a day to educate yoursef before attempting to teach others nonsense.

plaetton:
Quite frankly, anyone who is not open minded enough to consider(not necessarily accept) such scenarios is not qualified to see him or herself as a seeker of knowledge, a discussion of this sort a waste of time.

Open mindedness contemplates any idea before judging it. Open-mindedness does in fact shut out ideas BUT after consideration but close-mindedness bars ideas prima facie. I have and still am contemplating abiogenesis and find it untenable. In fact, it's so untenable mainstream abiogenesis researchers hardly attempt to simulate natural conditions before life.

plaetton:
It does not matter to me the technical shortcomings of an idea as long as the general idea is scientifically plausible.

The technical shortcomings, critical ones I mentioned and you WILFULLy ignored override its 'scientific' plausibility.

plaetton:

The very fact that other eminent scientists can find fault in the experiment speaks volumes about the superiority of the scientific system.
It is laughable that one wants to use scientific rationalism to dismiss a scientific notion, and then tries to substitute with non-scientific invisible hand hokus pokus.

If you dismiss the theory of Abiogenesis on flimsy technicalities, then you must offer a more reasonable and plausible scientific notion that we can work with.

I dread you call the facts of aminocylation, ribosomes being incapable of performin it, and ribosyme engineering as non-scientific. All I wrote was flimsy, damn ! I mean it was expected but then, damn ! So coacervates by Oparin and Fox's protenoids are what 'scientific'. SMH. Wallow in your dreamland.

plaetton:
I keep saying that you guys are deaf and dumb. the whole theory of Abiogenesis is to try to show plausibility.

Remember, after successful outcome of Miller-Urey experiment it being published in journals, books, medials that scientist have successfully demostrated how life could've started in early Earth inwhich some years back Plaetton also believe that life started in on earth. If you're not deaf and dumb as you say in your post why can't you ask yourself if scientist don't know the origin of LIFE, how do they know only a single cell started it all?

They did their best simulate a prehistoric environmental condition. They did not have to get it 100% right.

They been awarded for the outcome of their experiment hope you know that.

Any one with an open mind would know that 3.5 billion years ago, the earth and our solar system could have been in another part of the galaxy as the sun carries us along her 250 billion years cycle around the galactic center.
So the conditions could have been totally different and perhaps, unique.

No wonder scientist couldn't account for rotation of the planet like Venus & Uranus that rotate clockwise on their axis while the rest like Earth, Mercury e.t.c rotate anticlockwise despite that all planet are control by same SUN.

It is also possible, again for any one with an open mind, that the actual first process that generated life could have very well occurred in another planet or in another galaxy before being accidentally or deliberately transported to earth via meteorites or comets.

I will slap you from my Phone for you to mention 'DELIBERATELY', do you realise that deliberate is an action from a purposeful mind set?

Quite frankly, anyone who is not open minded enough to consider(not necessarily accept) such scenarios is not qualified to see him or herself as a seeker of knowledge, a discussion of this sort a waste of time.

Imagine Plaetton as an open minded still believes in one cell turns to billions of lives we can see today, when the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor accident in Russia is still producing disease in the local population because it increases the radiation and causes high mutations.

It does not matter to me the technical shortcomings of an idea as long as the general idea is scientifically plausible.

which scientific idea?

The very fact that other eminent scientists can find fault in the experiment speaks volumes about the superiority of the scientific system.
It is laughable that one wants to use scientific rationalism to dismiss a scientific notion, and then tries to substitute with non-scientific invisible hand hokus pokus.

lol...

If you dismiss the theory of Abiogenesis on flimsy technicalities, then you must offer a more reasonable and plausible scientific notion that we can work with.

Let me tell you the secret behind LIFE and why atheist scientist have not found the origin of LIFE.

Life is an immaterial which atheist don't believe in.
Cells are not life natural death proves it.
Life can only come from life.
Life isn't a chemical formula.

These four points are all true about LIFE take it or leave it.

^^^ Good post. However when he said "deliberately" he meant that an advanced civilization elsewhere in the universe could have done it.

plaetton:

" These [size=20pt]in turn[/size] would organize themselves into living cells".


Where is the lie?

Anybody notice the staggering fantasy in the bold?

"In turn" indicates a separate happening.

No experiment has ever been conducted on what then happens "in turn"!

And yet a blanket unsubstantiated statement is made that "these in turn, [size=20pt]would[/size] organize [size=20pt]themselves[/size] into a living cell!

The height of delusional fantasy!

wiegraf:

Since man was made from sand, and sand has remained sand for billions of years, why hasn't it become human as well?

I thought you were quite aware that christianity lays no claims to science? You were the one hogging all the science and logic to yourself so try and answer the questions pls rather than waffling.

wiegraf:

Considering you have absolutely no idea as to what evidence is, I highly doubt you have the needed expertise to offer judgment on what qualifies as 'needless waffling' or even more importantly, what qualifies as 'scientific'. Non at all. No, really, please explain; what sort of scientist goes around saying there's NO evidence for evolution?

You re.tard


Random; His point in that post is very, very simple; what does this have to do with atheistic stance? Mazaje isn't an atheist, no? So, why all the glee when chasing your 'pseudo' scientists my good quack? Or do you, my good scientist?!!, have a solution as to what's responsible for speciation, life etc?

Wait...

Let me guess....

GOD DID IT!!!

A scientist claiming god did it.. Left to your ilk spirits would still be responsible for cattargh.. You're a disgrace.... You should be lynched if found anywhere near a lab...... Really, wtf are you even doing near one? You clearly aren't seeking answers but have one ready made by your jewish slave mastahs, so why are you near a lab rather than a church?

Deepsight laid out 12 detailed questions, you ignored them to whine about God? Says a lot about your ignorance.

mkmyers45:

Please...Please...Please show me a proper peer-reviewed article that rubbishes this experiment.....We all know that the results of the experiment were later improved and more accurate findings reached but please show me where it was rubbished

Can you show me a major peer-reviewed article that takes that experiment seriously? Says a lot about your general ignorance. The scientific world left the Urey-Miller relic over 40 yrs ago.

davidylan:

I thought you were quite aware that christianity lays no claims to science? You were the one hogging all the science and logic to yourself so try and answer the questions pls rather than waffling.

I've known you to be a bumbling re.tard, but I did not know the extent...

You have one of those bible things? That book instructs you on what to wear (or face hell!!)? Let me help you

GOD!!!?:


New International Version (NIV)
The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Or perhaps you want to try another translation? And please, non of that nonsense about non-literal interpretations. You, and despite the supposed years of schooling, would be interpreting it literally if you thought you could get away with it. But as it's obvious nonsense suddenly.... the bible makes no claims to science.

At least the years of schooling saved you from complete folly..

And when, in your infinite wisdom, was I hugging all the science?

wiegraf:

I've known you to be a bumbling re.tard, but I did not know the extent...

You have one of those bible things, let me help you

Or perhaps you want to try another translation?

And when, in your infinite wisdom, was I hugging all the science?

This is more irrelevant piffle meant to escape the fact that atheists have spent over 7 pages unable to answer the simplest questions underpinning their claims. Struggling desperately to make it about the bible is quite lame to be honest.

davidylan:

This is more irrelevant piffle meant to escape the fact that atheists have spent over 7 pages unable to answer the simplest questions underpinning their claims. Struggling desperately to make it about the bible is quite lame to be honest.

Try to limit your foolishness, did you notice that YOU mentioned the bible, not me?

As for claiming we're not addressing, I hope your problem is just slight comprehension problems and not genuine re.tardation

davidylan:

Deepsight laid out 12 detailed questions, you ignored them to whine about God? Says a lot about your ignorance.

Oh, yes, and this. A scientist that can look one in the eye and say 'there's no evidence for evolution' speaking about 'ignorance'?

Please, clap for yourself oga...

Have to leave, just for now..

wiegraf:

Oh, yes, and this. A scientist that can look one in the eye and say 'there's no evidence for evolution' speaking about 'ignorance'?

Please, clap for yourself oga...

Have to leave, just for now..

There are 12 questions on the first page... plenty of space for you to pick just one and lay out the "evidence for evolution". Go right ahead and educate us. Surely it shouldnt be that difficult. Afterall you have been here responding to every comment except those that are germaine to the thread itself... surely it cant be because you have no answers no?

We are patiently waiting for your erudite refutation of all the "retarded nonsense" deepsight put up. I trust your intelligence.

loveroftruth: Most often it is better to overlook and ignore your ignorance that have driven you into the state you are right now.

But for this folly below, i take an exception.



The issue under discuss is 'life'. > consciousness(in animal).

Is a machine the 'life' in question ?

It is a fact that a machine is an organisation of inanimate material, including its brainbox etc, are lifeless.

The electricity also is inanimate, and cannot pass for 'life/consciousness' that is under deliberation here.

Why then did you bring such analogy here in the first place ?

So, your example is lost for wrong application. Why you could not see it beats me big time.



So, where does the amino acid fits in that "once it is reproduced life is achieved or it leads to life/consciousness" like plaeton is struggling to feed is perceived dummies here ?

Are you aware that the life in question attained 'consciousness' ?

That a machine is even powered with electricity does not means it is conscious ?

Is my car conscious, my phone ? My electronic devices at home ? Which of them is conscious like living things(animal) does ?

Dont you know what the life under consideration involves ?

You mr man, you are lost!



those things you have listed does not necessary account for animal 'life/consciousness'.

If you arrange those together it will still remain inanimate/without consciousness.
That you mould them as a human statue will not give it consciousness with your amino acid and water, if you think it will, then mould one and pump oxygen into it and see it come to life.

Yes, why not ? Is amino acid not there ? Is water not there ? So, consciousness should be attained then. No ?

If not, then note that matter will remain matter nomatter how you organised them, it will not, never gain consciousness.

How do you fellows think sef ? Smh.

It is obvious why some of you are where you are, proper thinking ability is missing

load of rubbish from a confused dummy.

the analogy was only suppose to show the difference between water and DNA, nothing more. all you have up there can be ignored.

loveroftruth:

See who is talking, the one that does not know what life/consciousness is.

The one that will sell "amino acid is alive/have consciousness over time" to his dummies.

Now it is propaganda that he has resorted to.

Your lot that dont know how to think properly except copy and pest should learn how to keep quite when critical thinking is involved.

Oh, your TYPE can come when cursing competition is open.

But for this me that can lose life when all the amino acid and water is still in me, i definitely know you are saying irrelent things as far this subject is concern.

Go and sleep mr man.

another mumu and annoying post from the same dummy. High school genetics will tell you that you lose DNA at every cell division, this is why you grow old and that blood vessel connection is needed to supply your cells matter for metabolism, this is why you die if such connections were broken even if you still have all the DNA and water.

your own ignorance is particularly alarming.

deinococus radiodurances can wake itself up after been confirmed clinically dead, so where is your breadth of life in that?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans

davidylan:

There are 12 questions on the first page... plenty of space for you to pick just one and lay out the "evidence for evolution". Go right ahead and educate us. Surely it shouldnt be that difficult. Afterall you have been here responding to every comment except those that are germaine to the thread itself... surely it cant be because you have no answers no?

We are patiently waiting for your erudite refutation of all the "retarded nonsense" deepsight put up. I trust your intelligence.

the question of life origin and that of universe cannot be answered presently until we know more about their evolution, so wallow in your ignorance a little bit more, theory of evolution is got all the time it needs and its still some 200 years old so calm down, in time all answers will be found and there will be no more room for your god.

davidylan:

I thought you were quite aware that christianity lays no claims to science? You were the one hogging all the science and logic to yourself so try and answer the questions pls rather than waffling.

His reponse was for the godly like deep sight, who also believe in evolution.

ooman:

another mumu and annoying post from the same dummy. High school genetics will tell you that you lose DNA at every cell division, this is why you grow old and that blood vessel connection is needed to supply your cells matter for metabolism, this is why you die if such connections were broken even if you still have all the DNA and water.

your own ignorance is particularly alarming.

deinococus radiodurances can wake itself up after been confirmed clinically dead, so where is your breadth of life in that?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans

What are you talking about?

What happened? As usual so much noise and our dear atheists who crow about logic and science all day cannot answer a simple 1 of 12 questions? What a crying shame.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Good post. However when he said "deliberately" he meant that an advanced civilization elsewhere in the universe could have done it.

Good post?

I shake sadly as I witness the descent of Deepsight.
Stop going to church, my friend.
I think it's beginning to mess with your head.
The mind is a terrible thing to waste.

davidylan: What happened? As usual so much noise and our dear atheists who crow about logic and science all day cannot answer a simple 1 of 12 questions? What a crying shame.

do you recognize logic when one is presented? as a xtian that you are, I doubt that..

davidylan: What happened? As usual so much noise and our dear atheists who crow about logic and science all day cannot answer a simple 1 of 12 questions? What a crying shame.

Davidylan.
You are an Enigma. You should be the bearing the Handle "Enigma" in Nairaland, not my other irredeemable detractor presently bearing the title.
lol .

You, Davidylan, if you were the scientist that you claim that you are would have easily dismissed those so-called posers with a casual wave of the hand.
The so-called posers are soooo elementary, that anyone, I mean anyone who has taken a first year university course in biology should enjoy a good laugh at the ignorance of those who for some very strange reasons, actually oppose the scientific theory of evolution as if was a rival political ideology or religion.

I have been deliberately dismissing the posers because I figured that they are too elementary, and I wanted, asked , urged and begged Deepsight to explain what , if anything at all, that he understood and accepted about the theory of evolution.
But like the brilliant lawyer that he is , he probably assumed that I was trying to trap him into a dark hole from which he would have found quite difficult to dissentagle.

Below is the one of the major posers deepsight has been harping on.

If you, as phd scientist, cannot volunteer to answer these questions for Deepsight, then you are dishonest.
If you, as a phd scientist, do not know the simple answers to these questions, then , I'm sorry, I dont know where to place you.
In your own words, you are confused about the bible and the biblical fairy tales(your own words) that you so much love to defend, and here now, you cannot stand by the scientific calling which you also claim to posses.
You are a very confused fellow.
You are an Enigma.




10. Se.xual reproduction, Se.xuality and se.xual organs deny and defy evolution as a product of chance alone. Se.xual organs so precisely fit for purpose in shape, form and function, as to be triggered by hormones into interplay, with the result of forming new creatures within a womb fit for said purpose, and feeding the new creatures therein for a gestation period prior to delivery as a new being into the world, cannot be explained as a consequence of random evolution.

You would have to show how, why and when the first asexual organism translated by reproduction into a s.exual organism, with all these fit for purpose se.xual organs and functions - and divided in functions male and female. You will have to account in evolutionary terms exactly how and why this happened somewhere along the line, as there was no such thing as male or female with first unicellular life, was there?

Exactly what is the evolutionary explanation for the dichotomy: male and female? How and why did this happen?

Why and how did se.xual reproduction come to exist in the evolutionary scale?

@Deepsight.

Once more, I have slowly gone through your so-called posers that you have been gloating about.
Once again, I can honestly tell you they do not reflect the lofty level of your intellect.
So, I begin to wonder what your motive was.

If you were sincerely in need of answers to the questions,you would have found them within minutes.
The simple answers to your so-called posers are so abundant, that any junior high school student can find them with a twinkle of an eye.

This is the information age. There are very few mysteries in your so-called posers.
Just go to google, just go to wikipaedia, just go to the science section of your public library.
Stop seeing mysteries where none exist.
Seek and you shall find. That is the mantra of our new era.

I am loathe to think that you are ignorant or that you are lazy.
So I think that your overly verbose and fantasy-laden write-up was more like an attempt to camoflouge your own confusion about evolution, while at the same time, ambush your perceived atheist enemies.
Akin to something that a fearful defence lawyer would present to an ill-informed jury.

It goes like this.
"Let me give the atheists a big assignment, and if they cannot quickly finish the assignment, therefore...... atheists dont know all about evolution, and if that is so, then the entire atheist's worldview is ......wrong".

Right?

The new face of Anonyism. lol
You have learnt much from our resident spin miester.

Now, if you are unable to find the answers to these posers on your own, and you are sincere about it, I will volunteer to give you a lengthy bulletin and summary of evolution, from which you can put 2 and 2 together( as I am sure you are capable), and answer the questions yourself.

The only cavaet is that you have to tell us, in some detail, your understanding of how evolution works.
That way, I can assist you patch up the leaking aspects of your knowledge on the subject.

Until then , be Silent!

Oh, I gave him and answer on his multicellular/unicellular evolution advantage and he ran away.


Any more questions deepsight?

ooman:

do you recognize logic when one is presented? as a xtian that you are, I doubt that..

logic does not agree with christianity sir. I thought you got that in our earlier conversation where i quoted scripture for you. Unfortunately for you sir, you're a man, and every man yearns for the power of the supernatural. Yes. Sometimes men try to satisfy this desire in their hearts with science, but most times, they realize that even that does not quench this yearning in their hearts. We know this power, we speak of what we experience and feel, yes, we know and understand that this powerful God whom you deny is at work in our lives. We testify, and ask you to join us in knowing this wonderful and loving creator. We have his evidence in our lives. But you call the message foolishness, simply because it seems illogical to you as you dont know what we experience. But is it not foolishness to deny the existence of one simply because you claim not to experience him? Even though countless others clain the opposite and you see its fruits in their lives?

plaetton:

Davidylan.
You are an Enigma. You should be the bearing the Handle "Enigma" in Nairaland, not my other irredeemable detractor presently bearing the title.
lol .

You, Davidylan, if you were the scientist that you claim that you are would have easily dismissed those so-called posers with a casual wave of the hand.
The so-called posers are soooo elementary, that anyone, I mean anyone who has taken a first year university course in biology should enjoy a good laugh at the ignorance of those who for some very strange reasons, actually oppose the scientific theory of evolution as it was a rival political ideology or religion.

I have been deliberately dismissing the posers because I figured that they are too elementary, and I wanted, asked , urged and begged Deepsight to explain what , if anything at all, that he understood and accepted about the theory of evolution.
But like the brilliant lawyer that he is , he probably assumed that I was trying to trap him into a dark hole from which he would have found quite difficult to dissentagle.

Below is the one of the major posers deepsight has been harping on.

If you, as phd scientist, cannot volunteer to answer these questions for Deepsight, then you are dishonest.
If you, as a phd scientist, do not know the simple answers to these questions, then , I'm sorry, I dont know where to place you.
In your own words, you are confused about the bible and the biblical fairy tales(your own words) that you so much love to defend, and here now, you cannot stand by the scientific calling which you also claim to posses.
You are a very confused fellow.
You are an Enigma.




10. Se.xual reproduction, Se.xuality and se.xual organs deny and defy evolution as a product of chance alone. Se.xual organs so precisely fit for purpose in shape, form and function, as to be triggered by hormones into interplay, with the result of forming new creatures within a womb fit for said purpose, and feeding the new creatures therein for a gestation period prior to delivery as a new being into the world, cannot be explained as a consequence of random evolution.

You would have to show how, why and when the first asexual organism translated by reproduction into a s.exual organism, with all these fit for purpose se.xual organs and functions - and divided in functions male and female. You will have to account in evolutionary terms exactly how and why this happened somewhere along the line, as there was no such thing as male or female with first unicellular life, was there?

Exactly what is the evolutionary explanation for the dichotomy: male and female? How and why did this happen?

Why and how did se.xual reproduction come to exist in the evolutionary scale?

Lol, this is just incredibly funny. Its amazing how you are not tired of repeating how you are "laughing" at our ignorance, how the questions are "sooooooooo elementary" and all that: and yet you spend lots of spaces writing and repeating this ad infinitum ad nauseum, still, in the most comical and cowardly fashion, failing to address the poser even once!

Funny man!