How do evolutionists account for human reproduction?
What is absurd is the idea that a species has to evolve first, and *then* split into two sexes! Evolution provides a far more sensible answer … the human species evolved from a long legacy of ancestral species that already had two sexes. Earlier primates, earlier mammals, earlier therapsids, earlier reptiles … all species with two sexes … but different levels of sexual dimorphism (secondary differences in size and characteristics) … until we come to an ancestor that, yes, had both male and female organs. There is nothing “absurd” about that answer unless you already have decided that Evolution (common ancestry) is absurd, and *then* concluded that evolution of human reproduction is impossible. In other words, you are failing to see the how you have put the cart before the horse in your thinking. First you have decided that Evolution is “absurd” (apparently thinking that the world’s biologists are morons because they have overwhelmingly accepted an “absurd” theory as the backbon
<
> “How do evolutionists account for human reproduction?” Very well, thank you. > “The human reproductive system is incredibly complex” No more so, and in some cases less so, than any other species. > “slight problems/variations in the female body can easily result in the death of the egg/fetus AND the woman.” Indeed. And any genetic predisposition for such problems will be selected against evolutionarily, and will become less prevalent across a population. which is why, by and large, human reproduction works quite well. > “Now, add the male to the equation…Evolution requires that males and females co-evolved in perfect harmony…each change in males was matched by a corresponding change in females…or extinction occurs.” Not neccessarily. If a male is born with sperm that are better at swimming, then he’ll be better at fertilising females. With NO change in the females required. And his sons will inherit this trait, and it will gradually become more common across a population – as t
