₦airaland Forum

LordReed -

What tells newly born puppies to look for the breasts of a mother they have never seen and still cant see?
What tells new born turtles born on a beach to head to the sea once hatched?

Tell me.

On this thread, I intend to cite many examples of inexplicable instinct - inexplicable if the strict materialist random and evolutionary wordview holds true.

FreeIgboho / Wirinet / Plaetton

Every living creature has or should I say, evolves inbuilt instincts to seek whatever is necessary for its survival.
So I'm not sure what you mean by ' inexplicable' .

Do you assume that adding ' inexplicable ' to a trait confers intelligent design or divine provenance to such a trait?

plaetton:
Every living creature has or should I say, evolves inbuilt instincts to seek whatever is necessary for its survival.
So I'm not sure what you mean by ' inexplicable' .

Do you assume that adding ' inexplicable ' to a trait confers intelligent design or divine provenance to such a trait?

Its easy to simply just write that. Oh, they evolve the trait for survival.
Have you asked how?

I used two specific examples.
Tell me how exactly the pup knows that there are breasts at all it should seek.
Remember it is new born. It supposedly knows nothing. It has never even seen its mother.

If you say "inbuilt instincts" who or what buillt those instincts.
If you say it was by evolution, how did its ancestors derive that knowledge or instinct as well?

Tell me how exactly the newly hatched turtle knows of the sea. And that it must head there. Remember it is newly hatched.
What did you know two seconds after you were born?

I find it tiresome the way strict materialist evolutionists just use easy language to dismiss real questions. They evolve instincts for survival. I said how, in these instances. Tell how. Its so easy to just say.

Tell how.

PS: There is actually a suitable answer to this question. I want to see if you put your finger on it and we can discuss from there.

Other Examples -

Bird Migration: Many bird species undertake epic journeys spanning thousands of miles, often returning to the exact same breeding or wintering grounds year after year. They do this without maps, GPS, or prior experience, suggesting an inherent sense of direction, likely involving the Earth's magnetic field, celestial cues (sun and stars), and even landmarks. The sheer scale and accuracy of these migrations are truly astonishing.

Spider Web Construction: Spiders, from birth, can spin intricate and complex webs perfectly suited to their hunting style and species, without any instruction. The geometric precision and engineering marvel of these webs, designed to capture prey, demonstrate a deeply ingrained, unlearned behavior.

Sea Turtle Hatchlings Journey to the Ocean: Newly hatched sea turtles emerge from their nests on sandy beaches and instinctively orient themselves towards the ocean, often in the dark. They scramble towards the waves, avoiding predators, without any guidance from their parents. The mechanism by which they detect the ocean's direction is still largely a mystery, though light cues (the brighter horizon over the ocean) are thought to play a role.

Nest Building in Birds: Different bird species build distinct types of nests, from elaborate hanging structures to simple cup-shaped homes, all without being taught. The specific materials they choose, the architectural techniques they employ, and the purpose of the nest (egg incubation, chick rearing) are all ingrained behaviors.

Honeybee "Waggle Dance": When a honeybee finds a rich source of nectar, it returns to the hive and performs a complex "waggle dance." This dance, an innate form of communication, precisely conveys the direction and distance of the food source to other bees, allowing them to locate it efficiently.

Fixed Action Patterns: These are rigid, stereotyped sequences of behaviors that, once triggered, run to completion even if the initial stimulus is removed.

Graylag Goose Egg Retrieval: If a graylag goose's egg rolls out of the nest, she will instinctively use her bill to roll it back. If the egg is removed mid-action, she will still complete the rolling motion with an imaginary egg. This demonstrates a "hardwired" program.

Herring Gull Chick Pecking: Newly hatched herring gull chicks instinctively peck at a red spot on their parent's beak to solicit regurgitated food. This pecking behavior is innate and essential for their feeding.

Dead Bee Removal in Honeybees: If a honeybee dies in a hive, other worker bees will instinctively remove the corpse. This behavior is triggered by a chemical (oleic acid) released by dead bees, rather than a conscious understanding of hygiene.

Marsupial Climb to Pouch: Immediately after birth, a tiny, underdeveloped marsupial (like a kangaroo or opossum) instinctively climbs up its mother's fur to reach her pouch and attach to a nipple, where it continues to develop. This incredible journey is entirely guided by instinct.
-------
*Culled

The strange life of Samon.

Salmon are renowned for their incredible life cycle, which famously includes a return to their birthplace to reproduce. This phenomenon is known as "homing."

Here's a breakdown of this remarkable journey:

Hatching and Early Life: Salmon begin their lives as eggs, laid in gravel nests (called "redds" ) in the freshwater streams and rivers where their parents were born. After hatching, they go through stages as alevins (with a yolk sac for nourishment) and then fry, eventually developing into parr (juvenile salmon with camouflage markings). They spend varying amounts of time in freshwater, from a few months to several years, depending on the species.

Smoltification and Migration to the Ocean: As they prepare for their ocean journey, young salmon undergo a physiological transformation called "smoltification." This process adapts their bodies to survive in saltwater. They then migrate downstream, often hundreds of miles, to the ocean.

Ocean Life: In the vast expanse of the ocean, salmon spend years feeding and growing, sometimes traveling thousands of miles. They are powerful predators, consuming smaller fish, squid, and other marine life, building up the energy reserves they'll need for their return migration.

The Return Journey (Homing): When they reach sexual maturity, adult salmon embark on their arduous journey back to the very freshwater stream where they were hatched. This "salmon run" is one of nature's most extreme migrations.

Navigation: Scientists believe salmon use a combination of navigation methods. In the open ocean, they may use the Earth's magnetic field like a compass. As they get closer to the coast and the mouth of their natal river, their incredibly sensitive sense of smell plays a crucial role. They are thought to imprint on the unique chemical signature of their home stream when they were young, allowing them to follow that scent back.

Challenges: The upstream migration is incredibly demanding. Salmon stop eating once they enter freshwater, relying solely on their stored fat reserves. They face numerous obstacles, including rapids, waterfalls, predators (bears, eagles, other fish), and human-made barriers like dams. Many do not survive the journey.

Spawning and Death: Upon reaching their natal spawning grounds, females dig new redds and deposit their eggs, which are then fertilized by males. After this final act of reproduction, most Pacific salmon species die. Atlantic salmon, however, have the ability to survive and return to the ocean to spawn again in subsequent years, though this is less common.

This entire cycle ensures the continuation of the salmon species, with the returning adults providing nutrients to the freshwater ecosystems and their offspring beginning the incredible journey anew.
-----------------------
*Culled


Watch a one minute video of this process here -

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t83dc_kcSGE

DeepSight:
LordReed -

What tells newly born puppies to look for the breasts of a mother they have never seen and still cant see?
What tells new born turtles born on a beach to head to the sea once hatched?

Tell me.

On this thread, I intend to citreete many examples of inexplicable instinct - inexplicable if the strict materialist random and evolutionary wordview holds true.

FreeIgboho / Wirinet / Plaetton

Some would say survival instinct hardwired into their genetic memory over millions of years, but the truth is, like with so many things, in the final analysis, we really don't know!

FreeIgboho:
Some would say survival instinct hardwired into their genetic memory over millions of years, but the truth is, like with so many things, in the final analysis, we really don't know!

Its an easy answer to write without thinking. Anyone who thinks properly should first ask how their ancestors had the same instinct, such that they even survived for it to be passed down.

Just to make this clear: let us go back to the beginning of the so called millions of years. To survive, their ancestors must have done the exact same thing at birth. Therefore it's not any "millions of years" that put that instinct there. It was always there.

DeepSight:
Salmon are renowned for their incredible life cycle, which famously includes a return to their birthplace to reproduce. This phenomenon is known as "homing."

Here's a breakdown of this remarkable journey:

Hatching and Early Life: Salmon begin their lives as eggs, laid in gravel nests (called "redds" in the freshwater streams and rivers where their parents were born. After hatching, they go through stages as alevins (with a yolk sac for nourishment) and then fry, eventually developing into parr (juvenile salmon with camouflage markings). They spend varying amounts of time in freshwater, from a few months to several years, depending on the species.

Smoltification and Migration to the Ocean: As they prepare for their ocean journey, young salmon undergo a physiological transformation called "smoltification." This process adapts their bodies to survive in saltwater. They then migrate downstream, often hundreds of miles, to the ocean.

Ocean Life: In the vast expanse of the ocean, salmon spend years feeding and growing, sometimes traveling thousands of miles. They are powerful predators, consuming smaller fish, squid, and other marine life, building up the energy reserves they'll need for their return migration.

The Return Journey (Homing): When they reach sexual maturity, adult salmon embark on their arduous journey back to the very freshwater stream where they were hatched. This "salmon run" is one of nature's most extreme migrations.

Navigation: Scientists believe salmon use a combination of navigation methods. In the open ocean, they may use the Earth's magnetic field like a compass. As they get closer to the coast and the mouth of their natal river, their incredibly sensitive sense of smell plays a crucial role. They are thought to imprint on the unique chemical signature of their home stream when they were young, allowing them to follow that scent back.

Challenges: The upstream migration is incredibly demanding. Salmon stop eating once they enter freshwater, relying solely on their stored fat reserves. They face numerous obstacles, including rapids, waterfalls, predators (bears, eagles, other fish), and human-made barriers like dams. Many do not survive the journey.

Spawning and Death: Upon reaching their natal spawning grounds, females dig new redds and deposit their eggs, which are then fertilized by males. After this final act of reproduction, most Pacific salmon species die. Atlantic salmon, however, have the ability to survive and return to the ocean to spawn again in subsequent years, though this is less common.

This entire cycle ensures the continuation of the salmon species, with the returning adults providing nutrients to the freshwater ecosystems and their offspring beginning the incredible journey anew.
-----------------------
*Culled


Watch a one minute video of this process here -

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t83dc_kcSGE

Same exact thing happens with sea turtles.

Some will tell you these things are learnt at CELLULAR level. Instincts that play a crucial role in survival of a species become cell memory and are passed on at a cellular level and perfected over millions of years. This makes the infant do what is necessary for it to survive though it doesn't cognitively know what it is doing.

But like I said, the truth is, like with so many things, we really don't know for sure!

FreeIgboho:
Same exact thing happens with sea turtles.

Some will tell you these things are learnt at CELLULAR level. Instincts that play a crucial role in survival of a species become cell memory and are passed on at a cellular level and perfected over millions of years. This makes the infant do what is necessary for it to survive though it doesn't cognitively know what it is doing.

But like I said, the truth is, like with so many things, we really don't know for sure!

The question still remains how their first ancestors learnt the same thing.

Clearly they had the same behaviour, so it wasn't something learnt over the "millions of years" excuse.

DeepSight:
Its easy to simply just write that. Oh, they evolve the trait for survival.
Have you asked how?

I used two specific examples.
Tell me how exactly the pup knows that there are breasts at all it should seek.
Remember it is new born. It supposedly knows nothing. It has never even seen its mother.

If you say "inbuilt instincts" who or what buillt those instincts.
If you say it was by evolution, how did its ancestors derive that knowledge or instinct as well?

Tell me how exactly the newly hatched turtle knows of the sea. And that it must head there. Remember it is newly hatched.
What did you know two seconds after you were born?

I find it tiresome the way strict materialist evolutionists just use easy language to dismiss real questions. They evolve instincts for survival. I said how, in these instances. Tell how. Its so easy to just say.

Tell how.

PS: There is actually a suitable answer to this question. I want to see if you put your finger on it and we can discuss from there.

The reason we give these simple answers are based on elementary understanding of the slow ,complex and tedious process of evolution.

Surely sire, you don't expect me to give a PhD level lecture on how survival instincts are hardwired into genes of living species.

There is no such thing as a ' suitable ' answer.
Answers have to have core scientific basis in order to be considered as plausible.

Now, if you have a good, scientific explanation for how little puppies find their mother's ripples, then please share it. We would all be certainly enriched by the knowledge.

DeepSight:
The question still remains how their first ancestors learnt the same thing.

Clearly they had the same behaviour, so it wasn't something learnt over the "millions of years" excuse.

It was PERFECTED over millions of years. Lots of the ancestors died so that the ones that survived to breed passed on the traits that aided their survival. Example, sea turtles: they initially went in all directions after birth but the ones that survived were the ones drawn to the light (the ocean) and that gradually got ingrained into species cell memory

FreeIgboho:
It was PERFECTED over millions of years. Lots of the ancestors died so that the ones that survived to breed passed on the traits that aided their survival. Example, sea turtles: they initially went in all directions after birth but the ones that survived were the ones drawn to the light (the ocean) and that gradually got ingrained into species cell memory

Again, easy to write in usual language without thorough thought. Do you imagine that genetic memory is such a thing that is activated in specific moments of life such as at the birth of a sea turtle or at the time salmon begin their homing journeys?

If so, how so? That is not how any genetic memory works. Genetic memory can only go towards natural proclivities, which we may call character - it is not some magical thing that gives you specific instructions on what to do at a specific moment in life which you then faithfully do.

DeepSight:
Again, easy to write in usual language without thorough thought. Do you imagine that genetic memory is such a thing that is activated in specific moments of life such as at the birth of a sea turtle or at the time salmon begin their homing journeys?

If so, how so? That is not how any genetic memory works. Genetic memory can only go towards natural proclivities, which we may call character - it is not some magical thing that gives you specific instructions on what to do at a specific moment in life which you then faithfully do.

Ok, this is how natural selection explains it. Using turtles again; initially, as with anything, there is variety - some are drawn to darkness, some drawn to loudest sound, etc. Those that survived were only those drawn to light (the ocean). Eventually only turtles naturally drawn to light were born because that's the only trait that survives

FreeIgboho:
Ok, this is how natural selection explains it. Using turtles again; initially, as with anything, there is variety - some are drawn to darkness, some drawn to loudest sound, etc. Those that survived were only those drawn to light (the ocean). Eventually only turtles naturally drawn to light were born because that's the only trait that survives

And for you, genetic memory then imprints it on the minds of their descendants to be drawn to light at birth right?

This is a speculative attempt with no grounding in reality and it is in fact quite incorrect as per natural selection.

Natural selection is better explained in the case of mutations. Where a specific mutation increases chances of survival then the descendants of the individuals with that mutation are the ones more likely to survive, and so on.

This is altogether different from claiming genetic memory which gives specific instructions on what to do at specific moments in life such as for a homing journey regarding Salmon.

The reason I gave several examples also is to help us think with rigor. So that if you try one excuse in one instance, it must also explain all the other instances for it to be valid. Your excuse is nothing but fanciful imagination with an attempt to bend science towards it.

Your excuse would mean that in the case of pups perhaps there were ancient pups who did not look for the breasts of a mother. And only a few did, and then their descendants began doing that over millions of years from genetic memory. Again, as I said, this is not how genetic memory even works.

DeepSight:
And for you, genetic memory then imprints it on the minds of their descendants to be drawn to light at birth right?

This is a speculative attempt with no grounding in reality and it is in fact quite incorrect as per natural selection.

Natural selection is better explained in the case of mutations. Where a specific mutation increases chances of survival then the descendants of the individuals with that mutation are the ones more likely to survive, and so on.

This is altogether different from claiming genetic memory which gives specific instructions on what to do at specific moments in life such as for a homing journey regarding Salmon.

The reason I gave several examples also is to help us think with rigor. So that if you try one excuse in one instance, it must also explain all the other instances for it to be valid. Your excuse is nothing but fanciful imagination with an attempt to bend science towards it.

Your excuse would mean that in the case of pups perhaps there were ancient pups who did not look for the breasts of a mother. And only a few did, and then their descendants began doing that over millions of years from genetic memory. Again, as I said, this is not how genetic memory even works.

Believe it or not, all these traits can be quite logically explained without involving magic or God. Just search the internet. The only issue is that we have no way of being sure that's how it actually worked. It is equally possible that God gave them those traits

FreeIgboho:
Believe it or not, all these traits can be quite logically explained without involving magic or God. Just search the internet. The only issue is that we have no way of being sure that's how it actually worked. It is equally possible that God gave them those traits

Remember I said in my first response to Plaetton that there is actually a suitable answer but I want to see who puts their finger on it.

This genetic memory answer is not it. I have said it repeatedly that it doesn't answer for why the first ancestors did the same thing.

PS: You tend to sound fairly rational once you are not discussing Jesus.

DeepSight:
Remember I said in my first response to Plaetton that there is actually a suitable answer but I want to see who puts their finger on it.

This genetic memory answer is not it. I have said it repeatedly that it doesn't answer for why the first ancestors did the same thing.

PS: You tend to sound fairly rational once you are not discussing Jesus.

*Please, what have I said about Jesus you don't consider rational?

The first ancestors didn't do the same thing. Very few did. That's why it took millions of years. Example, I'm sure there were humans who never got hungry but of course they quickly died out. Now it seems all humans always got hungry. Nature supplies vast varieties, then through trial and error the "best" traits survive, which makes it seem that's all there ever was or like it was intentionally so from the beginning

FreeIgboho:
*Please, what have I said about Jesus you don't consider rational?

All your rigmarole about him being God was terribly irrational.

The first ancestors didn't do the same thing. Very few did.

What is your evidence of this?

FreeIgboho:
Nature supplies vast varieties, then through trial and error the "best" traits survive, which makes it seem that's all there ever was or like it was intentionally so from the beginning

I have told you repeatedly, traits are not specific instructions of what to do at specific life moments such as at birth or at the start of a homing journey for salmon.

plaetton:
Every living creature has or should I say, evolves inbuilt"in instincts to seek whatever is necessary for its survival.
So I'm not sure what you mean by ' inexplicable' .

Do you assume that adding ' inexplicable ' to a trait confers intelligent design or divine provenance to such a trait?

When you say this it clearly proves that you lie when you say you can't respond to things you have never seen.

And that is the point of the op

DeepSight:
All your rigmarole about him being God was terribly irrational.



What is your evidence of this?



I have told you repeatedly, traits are not specific instructions of what to do at specific life moments such as at birth or at the start of a homing journey for salmon.

You simply restated your statement on Jesus so that settles that.

As for natal homing, etc, I told you use internet. See example below

FreeIgboho:
You simply restated your statement on Jesus so that settles that.

As for natal homing, etc, I told you use internet. See example below

These robotic answers written by thoughtless scientists are not helpful. How, for example, does the answer you sourced explain the behaviour of Salmon on homing journeys?

DeepSight:
These robotic answers written by thoughtless scientists are not helpful. How, for example, does the answer you sourced explain the behaviour of Salmon on homing journeys?

See how you dismiss people's life's work. Thoughtless scientists . If you have the time to research you'd find out the nuts and bolts of how it all fits in. It all can be explained by natural selection. Only thing I haven't been able to have it explain is why humans love food that's NOT good for their health.

FreeIgboho:
*Please, what have I said about Jesus you don't consider rational?

The first ancestors didn't do the same thing. Very few did. That's why it took millions of years. Example, I'm sure there were humans who never got hungry but of course they quickly died out. Now it seems all humans always got hungry. Nature supplies vast varieties, then through trial and error the "best" traits survive, which makes it seem that's all there ever was or like it was intentionally so from the beginning

Thank you.
Evolution does not go straight to the point where a species attains maximum traits for survival.
It meanders in all directions first until unsuitable traits are weeded out and suitable ones are adopted. Once it hits that 1 in billion lottery, it locks it into the genetic memory, and then seeks the next optimum survival traits.

I watch a tube video about certain experiment with forest monkeys.
According the report, if you teach a few monkeys in a selected portion of the forest a new trick that is beneficial to them,for example, a more efficiently way to pluck out and eat a fruit, in about a week time , the monkeys on the other side of forest would all be using the new skill.

FreeIgboho:
See how you dismiss people's life's work. Thoughtless scientists . If you have the time to research you'd find out the nuts and bolts of how it all fits in. It all can be explained by natural selection. Only thing I haven't been able to have it explain is why humans love food that's NOT good for their health.

It's easy to say without giving detail. Too often, people think dropping certain words is a get out of jail free card. So terms like "natural selection", "millions of years" and "quantum physics" are used like this. Quite often people feel once these phrases are used the questions are answered.

Let me give an example. I have queried the evolution of sexual reproduction on this forum with detailed questions several times. Most people like Plaetton, wirinet and yourself are content to just drop the "millions of years" escape card and leave it at that.

What they fail to ever task themselves with is the problem of how the organs of both sexes must have simultaneously evolved to complement one another. And the fact that this could not happen over millions of years because there would be no reproduction during that period if the organs did not already complement one another.

plaetton:
Thank you.
Evolution does not go straight to the point where a species attains maximum traits for survival.
It meanders in all directions first until unsuitable traits are weeded out and suitable ones are adopted. Once it hits that 1 in billion lottery, it locks it into the genetic memory, and then seeks the next optimum survival traits.

I watch a tube video about certain experiment with forest monkeys.
According the report, if you teach a few monkeys in a selected portion of the forest a new trick that is beneficial to them,for example, a more efficiently way to pluck out and eat a fruit, in about a week time , the monkeys on the other side of forest would all be using the new skill.

That's not evolution.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DeepSight:
That's not evolution.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I didn't say that particular instance was evolution.
That's learning and adaptation.

plaetton:
I didn't say that particular instance was evolution.
That's learning and adaptation.

So why did you bring it up. It's not as if any of the examples I listed is adaptation or learned behaviour.
Whats the relevance of what you brought up.

DeepSight:
It's easy to say without giving detail. Too often, people think dropping certain words is a get out of jail free card. So terms like "natural selection", "millions of years" and "quantum physics" are used like this. Quite often people feel once these phrases are used the questions are answered.

Let me give an example. I have queried the evolution of sexual reproduction on this forum with detailed questions several times. Most people like Plaetton, wirinet and yourself are content to just drop the "millions of years" escape card and leave it at that.

What they fail to ever task themselves with is the problem of how the organs of both sexes must have simultaneously evolved to complement one another. And the fact that this could not happen over millions of years because there would be no reproduction during that period if the organs did not already complement one another.

Because the details are too long to be discussed here. You'd have to be ready to spend months reading volumes. Remember these are branches of studies that people spend years specializing in.
So whatever is written here, like this below, necessary has to be a vague summary

FreeIgboho:
Because the details are too long to be discussed here. You'd have to be ready to spend months reading volumes. Remember these are branches of studies that people spend years specializing in.
So whatever is written here, like this below, necessary has to be a vague summary

You are funny. Perhaps yu didnt understand the queston. That's not unique to you. Almost everyone either fails to understand it or pretends not to understand it. I will try and help by rephrasing it -

- During the millions of years it took for the sexual organs and all their functions to evolve, how were the organisms they belonged to reproducing?

Deal with this first. In doing so think carefully. Remember that each aspect of the sexual reproduction system must have synchronized with its opposite in the other gender. So as sperm was evolving for example, eggs must have been evolving in the other gender. And since this process takes millions of years as is always claimed, how was the organism reproducing during that time?

I will reproduce my other questions in my next post.

PS: THE extracts you posted are way off the mark in addressing this question Waaaaaaaaaayyyyy off the mark - embarrasingly so - whch proves my point about how you people just like to quote any scientific terms that sound good - without thinking carefully.

@ FreeIgboho -

Here is an extract of a post I made year ago questionng the evolution of sexual reproduction -

---------------------------------------------

The reason I think it is a glaring sore thumb, and the genuine source of the controversies: is the fact that these phenomena are in reality completely outside the purview of the principles girding the Theory of Evolution! Natural selection and mutation of the sort advanced by the Theory of Evolution actually have no bearing whatsoever on these phenomena: and that is the real reason that evolutionists struggle in such wild confusion to force these phenomena under the trappings of evolutionary theory even when the principles of evolution have no bearing on them!

For your deep thinking please:

1. Why were the first unicellular organisms (which supposedly arose spontaenously from some pre biotic soup - [proposition not within ToE]) self replicating organisms at all?

2. If they were not self-replicating organisms, what factor led them to evolve the faculties of self replication at all.

3. If they were not self-replicating in nature, after first coming into existence, then they would have died, and the existence of any other such would depend on fresh flukes supposedly in some pre biotic soups.

4. Why is life self replicating at all? What accounts for this?

5. Further down the evolutionary path (and with great astonishing bounds and leaps of faith, I might add), why did se.xual organisms evolve?

6. In the case of se.xual organisms, which sex evolved first - male or female. Or did they evolve simultaenously, and how and why so? What evolutionary impetus drove this process, what caused this to happen at all. Or did females evolve from males only or males from females only or both from sexually neutral organisms?

7. Is it possible for a sexually neutral organism to evolve into two different and complimentary sexes?

8. Taken that separate sexes emerge, what evolutionary impetus drives and informs the aggregation of reproductive se.men in one sex while simultaneously driving the formation of a se.xual reproductive system complete with a womb in the other sex?

9. Further on, what evolutionary impetus would be responsible for the development of the pe.nis and testicles for the male, and simultaneously form the (admittedly eminently fit for purpose) va.gina and womb for the female?

10. What evolutionary process would cause the bodies to evolve such DNA transfer mechanisms as to be able to create the full copy of a complete creature through a se.xual process? What evolutionary impetus leads to this? What evolutionary explanation would there be for the coming to existence of umbilical cords?

11. What evolutionary pressure at the same time as all this also led to the formation of mammary glands (br.easts) for the female only, suitable for the nutrition of new born babies?

12. Where it is explained that men and women have all the foregoing se.xual differences on account of differences in hormones, what evolutionary explanation is there for the difference in hormones in the first place? And with this last question bear in mind that if they were not male and female already, there would be no separate male and female needs to drive such evolution of separate and different hormonal systems ab initio!

A careful dwelling on each of these questions from the standpoint of the holistic supposed process of evolution - and in line with the principles of evolution as taught, is that which you guys need to do: and therewith see with immediate clarity that which I contend, namely that these are phenomena completely outside the purview of any evolutionary principles whatsoever, which is why they do not have any possible evolutionary explanation.

@FreeIgboho -

Evolutionary Theories On Gender
And Sexual Reproduction

© 2003 Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Abstract

The origin and maintenance of sex and recombination is not easily explained by natural selection. Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction. Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders-each with its own physiology? If, as evolutionists have argued, there is a materialistic answer for everything, then the question should be answered: Why sex? Is sex the product of a historical accident or the product of an intelligent Creator? The current article reviews some of the current theories for why sexual reproduction exists today. Yet, as these theories valiantly attempt to explain why sex exists now, they do not explain the origin of sex. We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the origin and maintenance of sex.

Introduction

Biology texts illustrate amoebas evolving into intermediate organisms, which then give rise to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and, eventually, humans. Yet, we never learn exactly when or how independent male and female sexes originated. Somewhere along this evolutionary path, both males and females were required in order to ensure the procreation that was necessary to further the existence of a particular species. But how do evolutionists explain this? When pressed to answer questions such as, “Where did males and females actually come from?,” “What is the evolutionary origin of sex?,” evolutionists become silent. How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells? [Somatic cells reproduce via the process of mitosis, which maintains the species’ standard chromosome number; gametes are produced via the process of meiosis, which halves that number. We will have more to say about both processes later.

The evolution of sex (and its accompanying reproductive capability) is not a favorite topic of discussion in most evolutionary circles, because no matter how many theories evolutionists conjure up (and there are several), they still must surmount the enormous hurdle of explaining the origin of the first fully functional female and the first fully functional male necessary to begin the process. In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, Graham Bell described the dilemma in the following manner:

‘Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation.’[1]

The same year that Bell released his book, well-known evolutionist Philip Kitcher noted: “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.”[2] Evolutionists since have freely admitted that the origin of gender and sexual reproduction still remains one of the most difficult problems in biology (see, for example, Maynard-Smith, 1986, p. 35). In his 2001 book, The Cooperative Gene, evolutionist Mark Ridley wrote (under the chapter title of “The Ultimate Existential Absurdity”):

‘Evolutionary biologists are much teased for their obsession with why sex exists. People like to ask, in an amused way, “isn’t it obvious?” Joking apart, it is far from obvious.... Sex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists.

The full and thorough work is here:

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

@FreeIgboho -

As the article above is too long to be posted in entirety without being banned by the spambot, I post the conclusion.

Conclusion

Lewis Thomas, the highly regarded medical doctor who served for many years as the president and chancellor of the prestigious Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, was unable to contain either his enthusiasm or his praise for the system we know as “sexual reproduction.” In his book, The Medusa and the Snail, he wrote about the “miracle” of how one sperm cell forms with one egg cell to produce the cell we know as a zygote, which, nine months later, will become a newborn human being. He concluded:

‘The mere existence of that cell should be one of the greatest astonishments of the earth. People ought to be walking around all day, all through their waking hours, calling to each other in endless wonderment, talking of nothing except that cell.... If anyone does succeed in explaining it, within my lifetime, I will charter a skywriting airplane, maybe a whole fleet of them, and send them aloft to write one great exclamation point after another around the whole sky, until all my money runs out.’[48]

Dr. Thomas’ money is perfectly safe. No one has been able to explain—from an evolutionary viewpoint—the origin of sex, the origin of the incredibly complex meiotic process that makes sex possible, or the intricate development of the embryo (which is itself a marvel of design). At conception, the chromosomes inherited from the sperm are paired with the chromosomes inherited from the egg to give the new organism its full chromosomal complement. Evolutionary theorists ask us to believe that random, chance occurrences brought about this marvelously interdependent process of, first, splitting the genetic information into equal halves, and, second, recombining it through sexual reproduction. Not only is an intricate process required to produce a sperm or egg cell in the first place via meiosis, but another equally intricate mechanism also is required to rejoin the genetic information during fertilization in order to produce the zygote, which will become the embryo, which will become the fetus, which eventually will become the newborn. The idea that all of this “just evolved” is unworthy of consideration or acceptance, especially in light of the evidence now at hand.

The highly complex and intricate manner in which the human body reproduces offspring is not a matter of mere chance or a “lucky role of the dice.” Rather, it is the product of an intelligent Creator. Albert Einstein said it well when he stated: “God does not play dice with the universe.”

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

Do make sure to go through the whole article! It is truly worthy reading!

Oh, and here is the RESUME of the writers:

Brad Harrub is a graduate of Kentucky Wesleyan College, where he earned a B.S. degree in biology. He also earned a Ph.D. in neurobiology and anatomy from the College of Medicine at the University of Tennessee in Memphis. He is a member of the Society for Neuroscience, and was listed in the 2001-2002 edition of Who’s Who Among Scientists and Researchers. He was an invited speaker to the 2003 International Conference on Creationism. He currently serves as the Director of Scientific Information at Apologetics Press, and as associate editor of Reason & Revelation.

Bert Thompson is a graduate of Abilene Christian University, where he earned a B.S. degree in biology. He also is a graduate of Texas A&M University, where he earned both M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in microbiology. Dr. Thompson is a former professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M, where he taught for several years. While at Texas A&M, he served as Coordinator of the Cooperative Education Program in Biomedical Science. Currently, Dr. Thompson is the Executive Director of Apologetics Press and editor of Reason & Revelation.

These gentlemen are Phd holders in Neurobiology and Microbiology.

And they write and ask questions articulated on same posers as mine.