Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem

In the beginning, SEX did not exist. Evolution theory teaches that the first organisms simply copied themselves. So normative, gendered sex as seen throughout nature could not have begun without the appearance of the first-ever male and female organisms, mating in a never-before-seen way, and reproducing by a revolutionary method of reducing their chromosomes precisely in half then blending those halves together to produce one-of-a-kind offspring. How those first-ever sexually-reproducing organisms possibly could have evolved before sexual reproduction existed is quietly admitted by evolutionists to be the “Queen of Evolutionary Problems.”

In its own struggle for survival in a world of competing ideas, the theory of evolution is proved unfit, not by its insightful observations of what actually occurs in nature, but by a seemingly insignificant detail that could not possibly ever have occurred in nature. Simply put, evolution obviously happens, but evolution cannot explain either the origin of sex or the exclusive pairing of unique, male/female sex in each of millions of species. For Darwin’s Grand Theory of microbe-to-man evolution, those yawning gaps are an insoluble problem.

If the thesis of this book is anywhere near correct, the first, more-limited usage of human evolution (“bounded evolution” within easily recognized classes of beings) wouldn’t be disturbed in the least; but the second usage—the “unbounded evolution” so essential to Darwinism’s bedrock assumption of common descent—could not survive.

Genuine Evolution Theory Versus the Hyped Evolution Story

That distinction could not be more important. This book is not challenging the legitimate science of evolution so useful in scientific research, healthcare, and technology, only the highly-romanticized, commercialized, politicized, and subsidized microbe-to-man Evolution Story. Without the indispensable sexual transitions required for that familiar story, there’s simply no story to be told. What’s more, the highly-touted Evolution Story of legend and lore contributes nothing of value whatsoever to scientific research or medical breakthroughs. To the contrary, any scientific methodology modeled after the elongated time-scales, hallmark randomness, and wild guesses of the hyped Evolution Story would be a disaster for practical scientific progress. Anyone willing to wait millions of years for nature, acting randomly, to come up with a cure for cancer?

Question: Does it matter to current scientific research whether evolution theory wholly fails to explain the crucial sexual transition from amphibians to reptiles, or can’t possibly offer a plausible explanation for the first-ever male/female pair of the praying mantis, complete with their bizarre cannibalistic sex? Why, then, does the scientific community cling so desperately to the Evolution Story when it serves no practical scientific purpose? Well, that’s another story—a story often more about philosophy than science. In the pages ahead, by contrast, it’s the flawed science of the fanciful Evolution Story that’s of immediate interest.

What’s Crucial in This Book

This book is tightly focused on two simple questions, the first being: How could asexual (non-sexual) replication have evolved by natural selection into fully-gendered sexual reproduction? And the book’s thesis is equally simple: If there is an unbridgeable gap between non-gendered asexual replication and male/female sexual reproduction, then that Achilles’ heel is the fatal undoing of microbe-to-man evolution.

In order to most sharply highlight evolution’s multi-faceted sex problem, in this book we’re tightly focusing on the most easily-recognizable and ubiquitous form of sexual reproduction. Call it “real sex.” Real male and female sex. Real male and female meiotic sex, typically including (but not strictly limited to) the involvement of sperm and eggs.

The question is: How did that specialized, unique, radically-different mode of reproduction ever come to be—especially considering the complication of germ cell differentiation into male and female?

When it comes to having sex, there’s always a first time. This particular “first time” must be a prototype life form fully capable of having sex and thereafter sexually reproducing. We’re not talking here about human sexuality, complete with all the external and internal sexual apparatus we normally take for granted. We’re talking about the ability to produce a male and a female (don’t rush past that not-so-minor detail!) who mate sexually (don’t take that for granted!) and then reproduce in a radically different (even counter-intuitive) way from every instance of asexual replication in the universe up to that point. So, it’s not just one “first time,” but three “first times.” Again, that’s male and female, mating sexually, then sexually reproducing—all of it fully in place for the very first time, at the exact same time. That’s a huge ask!

A Far More Widespread (and Even-More-Obvious) Sex Problem

While the necessary leap from asexual replication to sexual reproduction is the Grand Theory’s most fundamental and insurmountable flaw, the problem of evolutionary sex might actually be more easily grasped when we consider the impossibility of natural selection evolving the first progenitors for millions of distinct species along the supposed line of evolution’s common descent. Indeed, this is a second, stand-alone theory-buster wholly apart from the origin of sex itself.

Herein lies the second central question of this book, having to do with the Grand Theory’s linchpin assumption of common-origin evolution (which assumes that all “higher” species evolved from “lower” species). How could natural selection possibly have provided simultaneous, on-time delivery of both the male and female of each species, complete with their own unique, exclusive mating and reproductive processes, without which there could have been no second generation of that species…nor any next-higher species?

To believe that someday science will come up with a credible explanation in the face of millions of missing sex links is beyond delusional, defying all reason and logic. Which is why, in the final section of the book, we will address the attempt on the part of a growing number of folks to reconcile their religious beliefs with the entrenched Evolution Story in what is known as “evolutionary creation” or “theistic evolution.” Based as it is on flawed science, that view is a futile, indeed unnecessary, attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. Not even throwing God at the problem solves the problem.