I had a revelation this morning, looking up at the spiders in my front porch and seeing pairs of them. I thought, "Hmmm. Some are probably males and females. I wonder if they're going to breed up there. 'Cause spiders need a male and female to breed. Wait. Is there anything that DOESN'T need a male and female to breed?"
It was then that I realized that nearly all animals and insects need a male and female to breed. Granted there are some weird circumstances where a certain species can change gender to suit their environmental needs (some frogs, for example, can do this-- a male turning female when it is surrounded by other males, so that they can procreate). And there are a few species which can reproduce asexually (usually only found in invertebrates, although it has been found in a few vertebrates as well. But typically asexual reproduction is linked to "less complex" creatures, which I think don't have the complicated genetic makeup that often can't support asexual reproduction).
Wouldn't the fact that you need a male and a female in order to procreate be proof of creationism? What are the odds that nature would just "evolve" millions of species out of nothing, and all of those species would require a male and a female in order to procreate? Wouldn't it make much more sense to have creatures "evolve" that only need themselves in order procreate? Would nature be able to "just evolve" a second gender in millions of different species (so this anomaly would occur over and over again, in species after species, as they evolved over "millions" of years), in order to vary the gene pool? I mean, I think that is one of the big reasons you are required to have a male and a female-- to try to vary the gene pool (if I procreated myself, I would create a clone of myself, and that would asexually procreate and clone itself, thereby degrading the genetic makeup with each "cloning".) Asexual reproduction is really much more efficient than sexual reproduction. Maybe not as fun, but definitely more efficient.
So, for me, the fact that most "advanced" or genetically complex living creatures require a male and a female in order to reproduce is proof of creation vs. evolution. Statistically speaking (and statistics are my life!). To paraphrase a variation of Ockham's Razor, "All things being equal, the simplest answer is the best." It is much simpler to explain it by creationism than by millions of random anomalies that came together to create this complex string of species that all follow the same rule of sexual reproduction.
I had a similar revelation one day while sitting at Yankee Beach. I was talking with Woodrow about "evolution", a term that he has serious issues with. So I usually try to use the term "adaptation" with him instead, as that is actually quite accurate. I've tried to explain to him in the past that when I use the term "evolution", I don't use it to mean that man evolved from the primordial soup or from apes, but that species "adapt" to their environment for survival.
So anyway, a lightbulb went off while we sat there, looking out at the river and the sea gulls, and I hypothesized that our genetic code is a "blueprint", and there are environmental "triggers" that can occur that will "turn on" or "turn off" certain code, allowing species to adapt to harsh conditions. (Anyone familiar with computer programming and code may think of this as an "IF/THEN" statement. "IF this happens, THEN do this." The code responds to certain triggers.) An arctic fox turns white in winter? That's because God put something in it's genetic code to allow it to adapt to the arctic conditions. Human races in desert regions have darker skin to deal with the sun. In nature you can find wider nostrils for better oxygen intake, larger pupils for nocturnal viewing, heavier fur for cold weather, prehensile tails-- millions and millions of little "adaptations" that allow creatures to adjust and adapt to a constantly changing environment. So I hypothesized that there are these little hidden "things" in our genetic code, put there by our creator God (who knew everything before it happened, so he knew the environmental changes we would have to deal with), and little environmental triggers will turn them on, causing us (all living creatures) to adapt to our changing environment.
Then a few months later, I saw on TV where a scientist talked about the same thing. Seems they've actually found these "things" in our genetic code that are turned on by certain environmental triggers.
Heck, even cancer may be lying dormant and then triggered by something.
***sound of crickets***
Welcome inside my scary head.
That's how I started out my morning. So, how did you start yours?
A Taste Of Hong Kong In Washington DC: Tiger Fork
11 hours ago