# What do you think of this argument against naturalistic evolution?



## Mathetes (Aug 21, 2009)

I was reading through some blogs on the subject of evolution/design and started mulling over some concepts in my mind. And it seemed to me that the one thing that was left out of a lot of arguments for evolution was reproduction. Now, reproduction is taken for granted, to be sure - evolutionists sometimes refer to reproduction as the engine driving the evolutionary process. But the evolution of reproduction itself - as far as I know - is something that is not discussed as much. So what I thought of is more or less this:

1. At the beginning of the evolutionary stage, we have single-celled organisms that reproduce aesexually, that is, by "splitting" - if this is as far as things went, then macroevolution might be a bit easier to believe

2. These single-celled organisms (so we are told) eventually evolved into mammals, reptiles, birds, etc.

3. However, these creatures reproduce, not by "splitting", but by way of male/female reproduction

4. This means that males and females of these species had to evolve perfectly compatible reproductive organs independently of each other, by way of a mindless, blind process

5. And not just organs, but complimentary chromosomes, sperm/eggs, etc.

6. Not only that, but these creatures could not reproduce (obviously) while in the process of evolving reproductive organs, since it would be beyond absurd to suggest that mammals, birds, and reptiles reproduced by way of "splitting" in the meantime

7. And of course, evolution is said to take, not just thousands of years, but thousands of generations

So to recap: somehow, it is said that males and females of a majority of the world's species managed to evolve perfectly complimentary reproductive organs, even though the process would have prevented them from reproducing for tens of thousands of years.

One objection that I've heard is that perhaps they evolved from organisms that had the DNA information for both males and females stored within it. To this, I think I'd say:

a. I've seen zero proof of this

b. I'm not certain that DNA can even "think" that far ahead

c. It's one thing to say that environmental pressure selects for a cheetah that can run faster or a giraffe that can stretch its neck longer - but it's another thing altogether to say that there is environmental pressure to devise a completely different means of reproduction. It is difficult, if not impossible to see where such pressure would come from.

d. It's uncertain what prior link in the chain would have this kind of information. Once you get beyond single-celled organisms, asexual reproduction is pretty much an impossibility as far as I know.


That's essentially it...what do you think?


----------



## Hungus (Aug 21, 2009)

I wouldn't use it. I suggest you look to a stricter argument, like say behe's work.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 21, 2009)

Not bad. 

Macro evolution is essentially hoopla. It's easier to believe for those committed to a naturalistic worldview than creationism because creationism involves God and miracles, and some would rather believe any shoddy rubbish than that.

If someone can already believe that life came from non-life without intelligent help, and reproduction of any kind evolved without intelligent help, they are unlikely to be persuaded by the second part of your argument.

The way to hone your argument would be to find out what evolutionists and creationists have written on the evolution/reproduction of reproduction. 

I'll bet the evolutionists will say there is not enough fossil evidence for the evolution of sexual reproduction because it happened so early.

Then can they posit any putative evolutionary pathways by which it happened. Some evolutionists might attempt to do this; whether they're more believable than divine creation will depend on the reader's religious presuppositions.

There are quite a lot of anti-naturalistic arguments from evolution. People are so spiritually deaf and blind, one wonders how much success they have:-

(a) Can reason evolve from unreasoning impersonal matter?

(b) Can mind evolve from matter?

(c) Can reliable reason evolve on the basis of the survival of the fittest?

(d) Can evolution evolve from non-evolution?

etc.

Alvin Plantinga has a few of them. Do a search for his arguments.

Also check out Kenneth R. Samples' book, "A World of Difference" in the section on naturalism.


----------



## Mathetes (Aug 21, 2009)

Hungus said:


> I wouldn't use it. I suggest you look to a stricter argument, like say behe's work.



Any particular reason why? It seems to me that if naturalistic evolution can't account for the hows and whys of reproduction, then it's more or less stuck in the mud.


----------



## Hungus (Aug 21, 2009)

Naturalistic evolution does account for the separation of sexes in its own way however, thats why I suggested you look at someone like Behe. Attacks should be directed to where naturalistic evolution is weakest if you are going to take an aggressive approach and what will happen with your argument as proposed is it will simply be countered and it will appear that you at best simply did not do your research.

If you really wanted to pursue your line you should look into the issue that since dna is self replicating why did the first cross organism gene transfers ever happen as this is a fundamental underlayment to sexual reproduction.


----------



## Nate (Aug 21, 2009)

I appreciate your critique of this issue and encourage you to continue on in your study of evolution. I think you should take the good advice of Robert and others and do further research on each of your points. Get away from the blogs for a while a do your research from other sources that promote evolution. You'll find that a large amount of investigation and theorizing has gone into the questions that you pose. I think even a Wikipedia search on "reproductive organs evolution" will give you some examples of species and mechanisms that you currently assume do not exist.

As your statements stand, evolutionists will simply say that you have not done your research and blow you off as another blind ignorant religious fundamentalist who is not interested in the facts (and with good reason --- I've been in this situation myself, it's quite embarrassing). I do think you have a good start, though.

I'm not promoting evolution - I would just like to caution you to do your research before you head out into battle.


----------



## Repre5entYHWH (Aug 21, 2009)

personally i like the old "if evolution were true, we wouldn't know it was true" and from there go into epistemology and some good ol presuppositional apologetics.


----------



## dr_parsley (Aug 22, 2009)

Mathetes said:


> That's essentially it...what do you think?



Please don't use it because demonstrating that you firmly believe evolution is false even when you don't understand it will only reinforce in their minds that Christianity is anti-intellectual, and do harm to the cause of the gospel.

I've got a lot of work on this week and haven't time for a big debate, but let me give what an evolutionist might say (off the top of his head):

If, as a simple asexual organism, another member of your species injects some DNA into you and you mix it with yours, the survival traits of your offspring may be greater or lesser than they would have been as identical copies of yourself; in addition there's a good chance they will also be DNA-injector-types. The ones with lesser survival potential die off, leaving the stronger. Necessarily, the ones with lesser survival potential include copies of yourself. Therefore the stronger ones will displace both the other offspring and direct copies of yourself. Ergo, evolutionary theory predicts (or necessitates) the development of sexual reproduction.

The next question is, given the development of sexual reproduction why did organisms specialise into genders? i.e. why wasn't it the best survival strategy to be able to share DNA with any other member of the species and not only those of an emerging opposite gender?

Answer from the simple multi-celled life-form's point of view: I am a simple life-form reproducing by sharing my DNA, but I can do it with any member of my species. The other day some of my offspring had a funny mix of genes that produced some funny results. As you know, these funny ones usually don't survive long, but this one was interesting. It could only reproduce with members of the species with a Y chromosome! Bummer! Everyone else had plenty of mates and were having a lazy orgy time, but a strange thing happened, this one was getting really desperate and starting fighting off rivals much more seriously than usually happens. You know, normally we put on a bit of a show, but this one got really serious! After a while it was stronger than anyone else and it was mating with loads of Y-chromosomes, having lots of offspring (which shared its peculiarity as well as its aggression). If it and its children go on like this, its numbers are going to overtake us old-fashioned mate-with-everyone types.

In other words - the increased struggle involved in the restriction of availability of mating partners produces stronger individuals. Struggle and suffering then, in an initially counter-intuitive way, are actually an advantage to reproduction and being mate-with-opposite-gender-only is one of those advantages-through-struggle.​
Anyway, as I won't have time this week to debate that evolutionist's point of view, I've just presented it as what they might say if there were here to present it.


----------

