Rational Faith

Evolutionist Misconceptions:
Correcting Mistakes in Memes by Evolutionists:

 

Meme: When the first human evolved, was it male or female?
Excerpted from: http://rationalfaith.com/2017/03/unmasking-mistakes-in-memes-of-evolution-part-2/#meme_firsthuman_male_orfemale

Once again we see this evolutionist avoiding the question. (Problem #3.) Let's rehearse what evolutionists believe to demonstrate this is yet another question they cannot answer.

Evolutionists believe life started as a single, replicating cell. Somehow the cell was able to differentiate functions so it could make the huge, insurmountable leap to becoming a multi-cellular creature.  As a multi-cellular creature, cells somehow kept on specializing[9] so you could get a collection of cells performing one function - like providing motion (muscles), or oxygen (respiration) etc. Now recall, all this must happen, according to evolutionary doctrine, without plan, purpose or design. So the question arises, how could evolution ever arrive at sexual reproduction? Consider what must happen: one group of cells in one creature must - without design or purpose develop into male organs. Another group of cells in a different creature must (without reason, design or purpose - since evolution is purposeless) develop into complementary female organs - again without plan or purpose. And the two separate organs in the two separate creatures must be able to work together to create a third creature like the first two. How did these complementary reproductive systems come about without plan, purpose, design or reason? Remember evolution cannot plan or purpose anything so how and why would it happen?

Let me provide an example of how impossible this scenario is. I have in mind what I'll call a creature that likewise requires two distinct individual parts. Call them individuals. Let's simulate what evolution must do in a thought experiment. You're evolution building one creature; I'll simulate building the other. Since evolution is mindless and purposeless (as this evolutionist confirms here), you must build your part without knowing what I'm building, how it must work, or even what the outcome needs to be. Impossible right? Remember that, but let me give you a hint (which evolution would never have.) My "creature" is a two part website - the front end that users see, the back end, the database system that stores the data and provides the information to display to the user. So I'm assembling[10] my database creature, and you don't know how to connect to it, what the passwords are to get in, or what kind of tables of information it has. In fact you don't even know where it is. Yet you (in the role of evolution) must still come up with a front end creature that works with my back end creature, without knowing the plan or design, how it's structured, what language it's written in and speaks, or even where it is.

Even with this information pointing you in the general direction, can you do it? Of course not. Neither can evolution, the "blind watchmaker,"[11] create complementary reproduction systems in two separate creatures, particularly when you consider that reproduction is many times more complex that the "creatures" in the above thought experiment. Clearly, the  meaningless, purposeless processes of evolution cannot evolve  the differentiated organs in separate creatures that allow for reproduction via two distinct creatures. The whole idea is simply ludicrous.  But then evolutionists believe some pretty ludicrous stuff.

Well boys and girls, ladies and gents, that's all we have room for in this article. Remember, a list of all evolution promoting memes - and the problem(s) with them that have been debunked thus far can be found here. You can send me a request to debunk an evolutionary meme here.
 


Duane Caldwell

Excerpted from:
Mistakes in Memes of Evolution Part 2

Related articles:
Mistakes in Memes of Evolution Part 1

Mistakes in Memes of Evolution Part 3 Codes and Complexity
 


Notes  
(Numbering continued from the original article)

9. Such specialization requires additional information and programming, and as previously mentioned, information only comes from an intelligent designer, thus this is impossible for evolution. Evolutionists have no idea where the information comes from - for cells to supposedly specialize and start doing remarkable things like light sensitivity in eyes. They remain clueless, but still they tell stories - like the one above. Such stores are just that stories, not science.
Back

10 This assembly will of course include designing it, and design is of course not a part of evolution, and thus not allowable in evolutionary processes. However for the purposes of this illustration, we need a creature to work with that has parts that become differentiated from it's original form. Disallowing design shows how impossible evolution is, because you cannot even illustrate the failed processes because you can't even come up with an initial creature to show the difficulty of the origin of specialized organs and features. (Origin of the first creature is a real problem for Darwinists by the way - they have no idea how the first living creature came about.)
Back

11. The "Blind Watchmaker" a term popularized by evolutionist Richard Dawkins in a book by the same name.
Back


Images:
Lucy Australopithecus By Mpinedag (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons