Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 22)
Message-ID: <499@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 20:24:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.499
Posted: Fri Jun  7 20:24:19 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 20:28:23 EDT
References: <367@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 45
Summary: 

In article <367@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>
>     THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
>
>    C.  NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  LIFE  ARE  SO
>        COMPLEX  THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
>        IT.
>
>       35.  If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a
>            result  of  evolution,  then  an  absolutely  unbelievable
>            series of chance events would have  had  to  occur  [a,b].
>            First,  the  amazingly  complex  and  completely different
>            reproductive systems of the male must have COMPLETELY  and
>            INDEPENDENTLY  evolved at about the SAME TIME AND PLACE as
>            those of the female. Just a slight incompleteness in  only
>            one  of  the  two  would  make  both  reproductive systems
>            useless,  and  natural  selection   would   oppose   their
>            survival.
>
>
	This is the most absurd argument yet! It is in fact a total
strawman argument.  NOBODY has EVER seriously proposed the origin of
sexuality in anything like the manner discussed here! Of course if
this *were* proposed, it would be proper to reject it it on just this
basis. The model here can *only* have been proposed in order to have
something to attack that is *obviously* incorrect.
	This, *again*, goes back to co-evolutionary principles. No
scientist would make the sexual paradigm of "higher" plants and
animals with thier extreme sexual dimorphism and behavioral/sexual
specializations as the *ancestral* form of sexuality. Try looking
at Protistans, especially those with gametes that are morphologically
similar. These forms often show *no* sexual dimorphism and a simple
alternation of generations between diploid and haploid individuals,
which may also be morphologically similar(i.e. the "gametes" look
like the "adults"). The origin of such a system from some sort of
optional fusion between genetically similar individuals is *quite*
reasonable, and not *nearly* as absurd as the "arise full blown"
version of the pamphlet. My goodness, under evolutionary theory
*nothing* arises full-blown!
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen