Replies

"Also, isn't it AMAZING that a female AND male evolved in EVERY species at the same time so it can have babies?"

That would be amazing, if it were true. Of course, it is not true. That you do not know that is reason enough not to continue discussing the issue with you.

I believe you are misinterpreting dmanLA's statement. I don't think he is saying that all species HAVE male and female specifically. I believe he is pointing to the fact that all species that DO have multiple genders required for propogation of its species actually DO have them.

Said another way: How is it that every combination of genders required to procreate did so at exactly the same time as would be required? A series of trillions of mutations that resulted in a male aardvark would mean nothing if there wasn't a female. Did every mammal somehow have an asexual "transitional" animal at each and every one of the required trillions of mutations to ensure the survival of that "type"?

To add to the confusion: Why would an asexual species EVER mutate into two different genders since it would already be more efficient at procreation? How does that fit with "natural selection"?

And one more tiny point: Where are the fossils of these trillions of "transitional" asexual fossils for each of the trillions of evolutionary stages for each of millions of different "types" of mammals that have existed?

I took a probability class once. I'm fairly sure that the required permutations and combinations of mutations (assuming we could even get positive mutations) would require more time than we've had since the "big bang" . . . and that's just for the aardvarks.