According to evolution, the first cell somehow replicated itself asexually and continued to do so for the next couple of billion years. Then a about a half a billion years ago, some marine organism developed a mutation that caused it to develop some sexual characteristics. At the exact same time, another member of the same type of marine organism also developed a mutation that resulted in it developing the opposite yet complimentary sexual characteristics as the other mutated individual. These two individuals were near enough to each other in the vast oceans to eventually meet up and be the first creatures to sexually reproduce by releasing eggs and sperm into the water. This proved to be so successful that a number of other marine organisms developed the same mutations to make them male and female.
After a hundred million years or so of this type of sexual reproduction, releasing spore into the waters and hoping the right ones join up, some fish decided they wanted to make reproducing more intimate and they underwent some major mutations, all occurring at the same time, which produced completely new sexual organs than what previously exists. Some of the fish developed an internal womb with which to house, protect and nourish the developing eggs while the other group of individuals developed a male organ that could be extended externally with which to deliver the male spore directly into the female. They did this to insure a higher rate of successful fertilization and production of offspring. These fish were man’s early ancestors and we owe our sexual reproductive nature all to them.
If that sounds fishy to you, it should. When you boil the evolutionary story down to its basic essence, that is exactly what you get – something that sounds and smells fishy. So when I read a recent report from Scientific American about their January 2011 cover story, I just couldn’t help but write a comment about it.
For some time, evolutionary scientists believed that the first creature to have developed sexual reproduction resulting in live birth was a member of the shark family some 350 million years. However, the authors of this report now place the development to be around 375 million years ago with the discovery of a fossil placoderm or boney skinned fish, Materpiscis attenboroughi, that has a developing embryo inside of it.
It’s not the dating of the fossil that I found worth noting but the implication it has on you and me according to what the reports says:
…recent analyses of fossils found in a remote locale in northwestern Australia and elsewhere have shown that intercourse and live birth actually arose millions of years earlier than previously believed—and in a more primitive group of fish than the one to which sharks belong. These fish—called placoderms—reside on the long line of animals leading [to] us, and their sexual equipment gave rise to our own reproductive system and other parts of our anatomy.
In other words, because this is the earliest example of live birth ever found in the fossil record, these placoderms MUST be in the ancestral lineage of man. This is one of the most flawed lines of logic one can use. If a creationist used this form or logic, they would be ridiculed for being so stupid and uneducated, but when evolutionists use it, it’s taken as gospel truth and no one bats an eye.
However what I find the most unbelievable is the belief that any creature could suddenly evolve all of the genetic, physical and chemical requirements needed to develop the sexual organs and processes necessary to make them all functional. And then to believe that it happened at the same time in both sexes. Think of the number of genes that would be necessary to guide the development of the sexual organs in both sexes simultaneously. From whence did these genes come from? If no other creature had these traits prior to this, then what was the source of the genetic information to first create it? To be honest, none of the known mutational methods such as transcription or recombination or any of these can realistically account for the sudden dual formation of complimentary sexual organs to form in two separate individuals at the same time.
The statistical probability of live birth sexual reproduction to have evolved by random chance in two individuals at the same time is less than zero, yet this is what evolutionists expect you to believe. And to think that they denounce any form of supernatural explanation that biblical creationists use for the origin of life and physical structures but they expect you to believe in something even more miraculous.
It seems obvious that the only possible explanation is that God created some creatures to reproduce asexually, others sexually and even others with the ability to give live birth to their offspring. As for mankind, He created us in His image, not after some boney-plated fish.
Wong, Kate, Dawn of the Deed: the Origin of Sex, ScientificAmerican.com, Dec. 22, 2010.