As we had previously discussed that although Evolution does occur, evolution by means of natural selection acting on random mutations does not account for all complexity of life, and that there are many scientists who are now coming forward and expressing their disagreement over these claims.
Origin of sexually reproductive organism from asexually reproductive organism is one such problem which poses a big challenge for Darwinists. Evolutionary Biology has been unable to provide a satisfactory answer for it.
Jonathan M. in his article Sex, the Queen of Problems in Evolutionary Biology describes the problems as follows
…there is the waste of resources in producing males. Assuming a sexually-reproducing female gives birth to an equal number of male and female offspring, only half of the progeny will be able to go on to have more offspring (in contrast to the asexually reproducing species, all the offspring of which can subsequently reproduce).
He further points out
The females of the sexually-reproducing species perpetuate only half of their successful genotype. To transition, therefore, from a state of asexuality to sexual reproduction is, in effect, to gamble with 50% of one’s successful genotype. Given that the whole purpose of natural selection is the preservation of those organisms which pass on their successful genes, this strikes at the heart of evolutionary rationale.
Not only this, as the author explains the problem runs deeper
For there is, of course, the additional conundrum related to the fact that gametes (i.e. sex cells) undergo a fundamentally different type of cell division (i.e. meiosis rather than mitosis). Meiosis entails the copying of only half of the chromosomal material. In similar fashion to mitosis (which occurs in somatic cells), each chromosome is duplicated to yield two chromatids. In contrast to mitosis, however, the homologous chromosomes are also associated. So, at the start of meiosis, each visible ‘chromosome’ possesses four chromatids. At the first division, these homologous chromosomes are separated such that each daughter nucleus has exactly half the chromosome number. At this stage, each is present as two copies (chromatids). These chromatids are hence separated at the second division such that each new nucleus only has a single copy. In order for sexual reproduction to work, it is essential that the process of meiosis evolve to halve the chromosome number. And this ability must also only occur in the gametes and not in the somatic cells. This difficulty is accentuated by the multitude of novel elements which are found in meiosis, rendering it unlikely to be explicable in terms of single mutational steps.
And then there is the added problem of male and female complementarity — a seemingly remarkable incidence of co-evolution.
Darwinists have tried to give two possible explanations for this problem. One, and the more popular one, is that sex provides advantage of introducing genetic variety. This makes population to be in a better position to enable it to adapt more readily to environmental hazards such as parasites.
But does this solve the problem as outlined above? No, says Jonathan M. He explains
Such immense genetic flexibility is of benefit only to future generations, and not to the present population. But natural selection, being devoid of foresight, is not able to retain biological phenomena for their potential future utility. The problems which I outlined above are potent short-term disadvantages which should have mitigated against sexual reproduction evolving in the first place!
…this still doesn’t provide anything like the type of causal explanation which we require (nor does it really resolve any of the problems I outlined previously), the thesis that sex evolved in order to prevent macroevolution renders even more implausible the grander claims of evolution that all extant species are the product of descent-with-modification as a result of random variation acted upon by selection.
As it is clear, both the solutions offered do not solve the problem in reality as it does not answer the fundamental problem.
Yet we find that Darwinists continue to propagate through their books/literatures/websites that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a fact and explains all complexity that we see in life. And the above supposed explanations are provided again and again as an explanation to the problem of sex. But as we have seen, these explanations are not addressing the fundamental problem of the origin of sexual reproduction in the first place. However, since Intelligence has the capacity of foresight, and thus can see the future benefits of sexually reproductive organisms, they stand as evidence for Intelligent Design.
Thus we conclude that Sex still continues to remain a big problem for Darwinists, and the answers provided do not solve this problem. In my future articles we will go through some more problems that scientists have pointed out on how Darwin’s theory does not account for all complexity we see in life. We will also see that, how on the other hand, Intelligent Design provides the best causal explanation for them.