As usual, bob b, is trying so hard to spread his confusion about science:
Did you know that evolutionists have no credible explanation for sexual reproduction
Yeah, we know that no scientific hypothesis supporting macroevolution can ever be deemed
credible by
you, bob b, we got that.
But let me ask this (again): can you stop bickering about what science doesn't know yet and get constructive:
do you have a better explanation? More "credible"? Share it. Ah, perhaps the goddidit principle, I guess. The great creation plan that simply formed all these different species
ex nihilo - the same marvelous design that brought us such delightful species like.. Bacillus anthrax and Entamoeba histolytica, right?
Back to the topic: I didn't miss the deceiving tactics of your original post, the forced juxtaposition of your understandable anti-evolutionist incredulity, with Dawkins' honest admittance of our limited knowledge on the subject:
But don't take my word for it. Even the arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that..
Nice move - rhetorically implying that "even" fierce evolutionists like Dawkins share your own confused incredulity when it comes to hypothesizing about how sexual reproduction may fit the evolutionary model.
Only that is simply not true: Dawkins may have stated what you wrote but otherwise he surely left plenty of room for scientific (and yes,
credible) hypothesizing on the subject. Would you
really like to discuss about it? (I suppose not, as you're surely not interested in "credible" explanations). If you at least read (and could follow) Dawkins' "Selfish gene" classic you may find even in there some reasonable hypotheses about how sexual differentiation may have come into play through the evolutionary progress (for example, have a read at chapter 9, "Battle of the sexes").
True, evolutionism cannot tell us
for sure how that had happened. It's a complex, multi-stage process. We should probably start with assessing the evolutionary benefits of meiotic division, then move on to explore how that was even further beneficial by sexual differentiation, etc.
Since evolutionary explanation will never be credible for you, again, let's get back to your alternative explanation. I would love to discuss with you the details of how sexual reproduction came into the world according to your good book - I had some good fun reading those primitive misogynistic passages in Genesis 2-3, etc. and it was even funnier trying to extrapolate that "wisdom" to other life forms. For example, one would clearly read in your bible how that tribal patriarchal god came up with the sweet idea of creating the female counterpart mostly as a servant ("helper"?) for the male. Excellent plan. Though you may have some difficulty trying to apply the same paradigm to various animal species -- oops, look, that explanation is kind of messed up in the case of, say, the Praying Mantis bug (
Mantis religiosa), where the big female sometimes decides to bite the male's head off as part of the mating ritual mechanics (?!). Not much of a "helper" for that male, is it? So please do something constructive for once and give us your biblical insights about how and why sexual reproduction appeared in say, the animal kingdom. Getting back to plants would probably be even harder, but give it a try if you feel like. And guess what: it's much easier to think of this in terms of evolutionary benefits -- for example, observing that sexuate reproduction highly encourages gene recombination and so on.
