Evolution of male and female?

[JAL]

I am not a science student and and am totally uninformed about evolution. I'm just curious about how the science experts will respond to this post.

I'm an old-earth creationist. I am not a vehement Bible-thumper against evolution - I think Scripture allows for both positions pretty well - but I would like to express a couple of reasons for preferring creationism.

I believe that all consciousness, including sensations of pain, requires a soul. In my understanding, God plants a soul in every creature and traps it with His own hand inside its body, preventing escape. Since He is therefore involved very intimately with His creatures, I find it a bit unlikely that He took a mostly-spectator approach to speciation, as evolution would seem to suggest. However, this is not my strongest reason for creationism. I find the issue of gender a bit more weighty.


In other words I am particularly skeptical about the evolution of gender, especially in humans. Heterosexual reproduction doesn't seem possible unless male and female are both fully developed. Let's suppose the male reproductive system has already evolved x-number of years ago. Assuming evolution is typically slow, it's not likely that the female reproductive system would have, coincidentally, fully evolved by that same year, and thus reproduction fails, it seems to me. Hence the species dies out, I should think. I'm also skeptical that the male and female reproductive systems would evolve by any means since - with reproduction being slow - the mutations last/persist only if they provide a "selective advantage," and I imagine it unlikely that they would do so.

To summarize, it seems to me it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe in the evolution of gender, especially humans with all their complexities such as romance, puberty, hormones, plus the differences in voice, anatomical shape, and muscular strength. Am I mistaken?

 

[trophy33]

To summarize, it seems to me it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe in the evolution of gender, especially humans with all their complexities such as romance, puberty, hormones, plus the differences in voice, anatomical shape, and muscular strength. Am I mistaken?

Of course, the beginnings were much more simple, the complexity was added during a very long period of time.

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia

 

[NomNomPizza]

I am not a science student and and am totally uninformed about evolution. I'm just curious about how the science experts will respond to this post.

I'm an old-earth creationist. I am not a vehement Bible-thumper against evolution - I think Scripture allows for both positions pretty well - but I would like to express a couple of reasons for preferring creationism.

I believe that all consciousness, including sensations of pain, requires a soul. In my understanding, God plants a soul in every creature and traps it with His own hand inside its body, preventing escape. Since He is therefore involved very intimately with His creatures, I find it a bit unlikely that He took a mostly-spectator approach to speciation, as evolution would seem to suggest. However, this is not my strongest reason for creationism. I find the issue of gender a bit more weighty.


In other words I am particularly skeptical about the evolution of gender, especially in humans. Heterosexual reproduction doesn't seem possible unless male and female are both fully developed. Let's suppose the male reproductive system has already evolved x-number of years ago. Assuming evolution is typically slow, it's not likely that the female reproductive system would have, coincidentally, fully evolved by that same year, and thus reproduction fails, it seems to me. Hence the species dies out, I should think. I'm also skeptical that the male and female reproductive systems would evolve by any means since - with reproduction being slow - the mutations last/persist only if they provide a "selective advantage," and I imagine it unlikely that they would do so.

To summarize, it seems to me it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe in the evolution of gender, especially humans with all their complexities such as romance, puberty, hormones, plus the differences in voice, anatomical shape, and muscular strength. Am I mistaken?

nope , humans create souls by copulation , each persion doesn't have "new" soul creater
that why Jesus as one man could die for one man Adam and redeem us all else we would need 7b Jesus to die for each of us idividually today

Second of all Bible does not allow evolution at all in any way shape or form it makes distinction between each of animal flesh ( birds , fish , man ect) and says there is no death prior to sin which is contrary to whole idea of evoulution that man come from ape.

 

[nli]

I find it a bit unlikely that He took a mostly-spectator approach to speciation, as evolution would seem to suggest.

Evolution is a Deist philosophy that grew out of the 18th and 19th centuries. Entropy happens. Things break down and devolve.

it seems to me it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe in the evolution of gender,

Agree. It's more like imagination than a reasonable faith. Human systems have irreducible complexity. Almighty God finished the work of Creation in six Days but has stayed involved via Providence, Revelation, the Incarnation, the Holy Spirit.

 

[musicalpilgrim]

I am not a science student and and am totally uninformed about evolution. I'm just curious about how the science experts will respond to this post.

I'm an old-earth creationist. I am not a vehement Bible-thumper against evolution - I think Scripture allows for both positions pretty well - but I would like to express a couple of reasons for preferring creationism.

I believe that all consciousness, including sensations of pain, requires a soul. In my understanding, God plants a soul in every creature and traps it with His own hand inside its body, preventing escape. Since He is therefore involved very intimately with His creatures, I find it a bit unlikely that He took a mostly-spectator approach to speciation, as evolution would seem to suggest. However, this is not my strongest reason for creationism. I find the issue of gender a bit more weighty.


In other words I am particularly skeptical about the evolution of gender, especially in humans. Heterosexual reproduction doesn't seem possible unless male and female are both fully developed. Let's suppose the male reproductive system has already evolved x-number of years ago. Assuming evolution is typically slow, it's not likely that the female reproductive system would have, coincidentally, fully evolved by that same year, and thus reproduction fails, it seems to me. Hence the species dies out, I should think. I'm also skeptical that the male and female reproductive systems would evolve by any means since - with reproduction being slow - the mutations last/persist only if they provide a "selective advantage," and I imagine it unlikely that they would do so.

To summarize, it seems to me it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe in the evolution of gender, especially humans with all their complexities such as romance, puberty, hormones, plus the differences in voice, anatomical shape, and muscular strength. Am I mistaken?

I used to think evolution was reasonable until I heard Stephen Meyer on YouTube explaining Intelligent design and bought his book, Signature in the Cell. Interesting.

 

[Sparagmos]

I am not a science student and and am totally uninformed about evolution. I'm just curious about how the science experts will respond to this post.

I'm an old-earth creationist. I am not a vehement Bible-thumper against evolution - I think Scripture allows for both positions pretty well - but I would like to express a couple of reasons for preferring creationism.

I believe that all consciousness, including sensations of pain, requires a soul. In my understanding, God plants a soul in every creature and traps it with His own hand inside its body, preventing escape. Since He is therefore involved very intimately with His creatures, I find it a bit unlikely that He took a mostly-spectator approach to speciation, as evolution would seem to suggest. However, this is not my strongest reason for creationism. I find the issue of gender a bit more weighty.


In other words I am particularly skeptical about the evolution of gender, especially in humans. Heterosexual reproduction doesn't seem possible unless male and female are both fully developed. Let's suppose the male reproductive system has already evolved x-number of years ago. Assuming evolution is typically slow, it's not likely that the female reproductive system would have, coincidentally, fully evolved by that same year, and thus reproduction fails, it seems to me. Hence the species dies out, I should think. I'm also skeptical that the male and female reproductive systems would evolve by any means since - with reproduction being slow - the mutations last/persist only if they provide a "selective advantage," and I imagine it unlikely that they would do so.

To summarize, it seems to me it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe in the evolution of gender, especially humans with all their complexities such as romance, puberty, hormones, plus the differences in voice, anatomical shape, and muscular strength. Am I mistaken?

Have you looked into how biologists say reproduction evolved? I’d start there.

 

[JAL]

I used to think evolution was reasonable until I heard Stephen Meyer on YouTube explaining Intelligent design and bought his book, Signature in the Cell. Interesting.

Thank you. I just watched a couple of his videos. Very intriguing.

 

[JAL]

Have you looked into how biologists say reproduction evolved? I’d start there.

A long time ago I once googled about it, briefly, but wasn't highly motivated to fully research it. The articles I came across didn't seem to dwell on the concerns expressed in the OP. Rather they just seemed to assume that gender would evolve given enough time.

 

[Sparagmos]

A long time ago I once googled about it, briefly, but wasn't highly motivated to fully research it. The articles I came across didn't seem to dwell on the concerns expressed in the OP. Rather they just seemed to assume that gender would evolve given enough time.

It sounds like now you are more motivated to learn. The thing is, we have two choices if we want to understand a scientific subject - either become experts by long and careful study or trust the word of the experts. The people on this theology forum aren’t experts on evolution or biology. I’d encourage you to find an online forum where you can ask scientists about it.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Adam and Eves creation

All humans have 46 chromosomes, but sex is
determined by only two of them – called X and Y.
Males have one X and one Y. Females have two Xs.

The other 44 chromosomes are called autosomes,
and are the same in males and females.

To make a female human, All God had to do
is take out the Y and duplicate the X.

Males need one X to live, and the Y for male reproductive
functions. Females need two X’s for female reproductive functions

All of which must have been carefully predesigned by God
so He could make man and woman in such an amazing way.

Adam and Eve were separate, unique creations, with
Adam being fully male and Eve being fully female.
-

[theory] “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established
by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as
accounting for the known facts.” To be considered a theory,
something must be “confirmed” and account for the “known facts.”

The theory of Evolution has been neither.

Evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from
non-living chemicals that some how created all life today.

 

[nli]

The people on this theology forum aren’t experts on evolution or biology. I’d encourage you to find an online forum where you can ask scientists about it.

The people on this theology forum are experts about each other. Jesus Christ is the Judge appointed by God the Father and Judgment Day hasn't yet arrived.

Scientists weren't there when Almighty God completed His work of Creation. Science can't put history into a test tube and study it using the scientific method.

Genesis is History. You can find a helpful set of videos on that right here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzjPwFPxtpZTJ1dq7cAkb3g

 

[Nathan@work]

I am not a science student and and am totally uninformed about evolution. I'm just curious about how the science experts will respond to this post.

I'm an old-earth creationist. I am not a vehement Bible-thumper against evolution - I think Scripture allows for both positions pretty well - but I would like to express a couple of reasons for preferring creationism.

I believe that all consciousness, including sensations of pain, requires a soul. In my understanding, God plants a soul in every creature and traps it with His own hand inside its body, preventing escape. Since He is therefore involved very intimately with His creatures, I find it a bit unlikely that He took a mostly-spectator approach to speciation, as evolution would seem to suggest. However, this is not my strongest reason for creationism. I find the issue of gender a bit more weighty.


In other words I am particularly skeptical about the evolution of gender, especially in humans. Heterosexual reproduction doesn't seem possible unless male and female are both fully developed. Let's suppose the male reproductive system has already evolved x-number of years ago. Assuming evolution is typically slow, it's not likely that the female reproductive system would have, coincidentally, fully evolved by that same year, and thus reproduction fails, it seems to me. Hence the species dies out, I should think. I'm also skeptical that the male and female reproductive systems would evolve by any means since - with reproduction being slow - the mutations last/persist only if they provide a "selective advantage," and I imagine it unlikely that they would do so.

To summarize, it seems to me it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe in the evolution of gender, especially humans with all their complexities such as romance, puberty, hormones, plus the differences in voice, anatomical shape, and muscular strength. Am I mistaken?

I do not think you have to be a Bible thumper to discount evolution.

It is not a discount of Gods intimacy to realize that He created such diversity. Look at how complex creation is in itself. Multiple species doesn’t take away from it - it promotes it.

But as you have picked up on, as complex as life is, the procreation of it depends on two specific things.

So species evolve, but procreation did not? You know, there are some things that do not require separate male/female genders. If a person was to follow the evolution line of logic, seems all species would evolve to self procreate.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I do not think you have to be a Bible thumper to discount evolution.

It is not a discount of Gods intimacy to realize that He created such diversity. Look at how complex creation is in itself. Multiple species doesn’t take away from it - it promotes it.

But as you have picked up on, as complex as life is, the procreation of it depends on two specific things.

So species evolve, but procreation did not? You know, there are some things that do not require separate male/female genders. If a person was to follow the evolution line of logic, seems all species would evolve to self procreate.

Although the vast majority of species are asexual, there are drawbacks. Hence, sexual procreation is not necessarily inferior to asexual procreation. Personally, I think the marsupials have it down really well. After a female kangaroo gives birth, the joeys (baby kangaroos) live inside the mother's pouch. Depending on environmental conditions such as drought which is quite common in most of Australia, the mother can delay the development of the joeys for quite a lengthy period of time. In addition, unlike human babies which emerge with really large heads, making the birth process usually difficult and painful for the mother, marsupial offspring are very small and there is virtually no effort on the part of the female kangaroo in giving birth.