Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 22)
Message-ID: <659@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 20:55:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.659
Posted: Thu Jun  6 20:55:32 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Jun-85 02:39:15 EDT
References: <367@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 38

>    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

Sexual reproduction is a much better
mechanism than asexual reproduction for combining traits of different
members of a species in their offspring.  Asexual reproducers basically
produce 'clone' offspring, while sexual reproducers combine traits, and
via natural selection the combinations with more successful traits pass
them on, and combine them with the successful traits of other members
of the same species.  Asexual reproducers might then, through mutation,
achieve 'speciation' (become a different species) more readily than 
sexual reproducers as they already have reproductive isolation,
but sexual reproducers would propogate benifical new mutations
throughout the immediate population.  

As far as how sexual reproduction may have evolved, it would seem 
possibly to have grown out of some type of hermaphroditism.  I'm sure
we could think up a variety of plausible scenarios as to how it may
have happened, giving it a little thought.  Because sexual
reproduction can be shown to be more effective at passing greater
numbers of successful traits on to more offspring, I don't think
there is any particular conflict with evolution here.

By the way, I'd still like to know what the creationists think that
sexual reproduction is for.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd