Yes i do argee that evolutionist can not give a clear answer on this qeustion. It makes more sense that all organisms would be asexual rather than having the need for a partner (evolution wise).
Reason for this would be asexual organisms can multipily themself much quicker than sexual reproduction. I have heard many claims that the transition (form asexual to sexual reproduction)occured becaese sexual reproduction would bring about more mutations and help organism to evolve. But how and where would this have taken places?
Why sexual reproduction if asexual reproduction passes genetic material twice as efficiently?
Evolutionist do not have an explaination for this and are still puzzled about this.
- and -
"and you ceationist dude are just plain wrong with your anti intellectual speculation!
heres proof, read it and weep!If you can!
Irreducible Complexity: The (Cosmic) Emperor's New Clothes
Michael Behe, an Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, published a book called Darwin's Black Box in 1996. Since that time he has been at the forefront of the Intelligent Design Movement." - foghat
if you mean i did not know what i was talking about then you should read what i wrote
Subject: Re: "The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity"
From: CreationistDude | All CreationistDude's Messages |
Date: 2/20/2006 4:36:00 PM ( 4 days ago ) ... viewed 33 times since Feb 20 2005
if you mean The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity in itself than we can post evidence later.