An absolute refutation of Darwinism
(Note: Commenter Ploni Almoni has pointed out a problem with a point I made near the end of this article as originally posted. I thank him and I’ve changed it accordingly. My main point, about the impossibility of the appearance of sexual intercourse and internal fertilization as a result of Darwinian processes, stands. See also a follow-up to this article, in which I discuss internal fertilization in some amphibian species.)
In the previous entry on Darwinism and teleology, Sage McLaughlin comments:
“I have discussed this at more length with other bloggers, but the easiest example I can think of is (of course) sex. Masculinity and femininity, and at a more profane level the male and the female, are in large measure teleological concepts.”It’s funny that Mr. McLaughlin should mention this, because an hour or two before reading his e-mail, I was talking about evolution with a friend, and we suddenly realized that one of the greatest evolutionary puzzles is the appearance of reproduction by sexual intercourse in vertebrates. In fishes and amphibians, there is no sexual intercourse. Fertilization is external. The female lays her eggs in the water and the male ejects his sperm over the eggs, and that’s it. There is no direct physical contact between the sexes and no parental involvement with the young.
But starting with reptiles, fertilization is internal, via physical contact between the respective reproductive organs of the male and female. The male reptile must have the appropriate organ that fits with the female organ and ejects sperm into the female, and the female must have the organ to receive the sperm and join the sperm with the egg, and also have the organs which secrete albumin (protein) around the egg and then secrete calcium around that to produce a hard shell and then lay the egg. The male and female organs must appear simultaneously and fit with each other. In the case of reptiles, this is the cloacum:
Male and female birds and reptiles both have cloacae, an opening through which eggs, sperm, and wastes pass. Intercourse is performed by pressing the lips of the cloacae together, during which time the male transfers his sperm to the female. The female lays amniotic eggs in which the young gestate.The male cloacum must be able to be fitted with the female cloacum and the female must have the entire system of organs to receive the male sperm and prepare the fertilized egg for laying.
How could this be, under the Darwinian scenario of random mutation and natural selection? Was there perchance an amphibian species, which suddenly, by random mutation, by pure accident, produced a male with a cloacum suited for fitting with a female cloacum, and, simultaneously, produced a female with a cloacum that fit with the male cloacum and was capable of receiving the sperm and of producing albumin and calcium for laying eggs? Also, both the new fangled female and the new fangled male had to have the instinctive behavior to press the lips of their cloacae together, i.e., engage in sexual intercourse.
Now, our Darwinian friends never tire of speculating about how a long succession of itsy bitsy mutations, each one somehow “adaptive” by itself, could accumulate into an extremely complex organ, such as the bacterium flagellum or the eye, in which a vast number of parts work perfectly together. But I don’t think that even the Darwinians would have the chutzpah to postulate that random mutations could occur in an externally fertilizing amphibian species that simultaneously produced a mutated male and a mutated female with mutually complementary reproductive organs suited for internal fertilization, the result being a new, proto-reptile species that reproduces by sexual intercourse.
This is not just something that is extremely, astronomically unlikely. It is inherently impossible. The Darwinian theory of evolution cannot, even by the wildest speculation, account for reproduction by sexual intercourse.
But of course the Darwinians do propose simultaneous complementary random mutations in the sexes. The below is from an article, “The Biological Basis of Sex Appeal,” by Richard F. Taflinger. He provides an interesting account of the radical differences between the mechanics of reproduction in humans and the mechanics of reproduction in all other mammals including primates. In four legged mammals and in primates, sexual intercourse is easy, since the female stands on four legs, and the vagina is in the rear, on the body surface, and readily accessible by rear mounting. In human females the vagina has moved forward, is not on the surface, and the buttocks (which exist only in humans) also get in the way.
At this point you may very well be asking yourself, “So what? So women have large buttocks—so do men. So women walk upright—so do men. What’s the big deal?”So, according to Taflinger, first the proto-human female evolved an entirely different body shape, with the vagina in a much less accessible location for which the small primate penis was no longer adequate. And then, for the species to avoid dying out (get the teleological language?), the proto-human male evolved a much longer penis that made penetration easier to accomplish. But—sorry for the importunate question—how long did it take for random genetic mutations to produce this much larger penis? If this change didn’t occur immediately, the proto-human species would have come to a quick end. And of course there was no reason for such a mutation to have occurred at all, ever—a problem that Taflinger’s teleological language covers over by making it seem that as soon as there is a need, like a need for a much bigger penis, evolution provides for it. Almost as though evolution was guided by an intelligent designer or something.
Now, as commenter Ploni Almoni points out below, Taflinger’s breezy scenario is proposed for the sake of illustrating a point. Darwinians would not seriously argue that all the changes described would occur all at once in one female. They would have occurred by stages in a population. Yet it seems to me that the breezy scenario still captures the essential problem and the essential absurdity of the Darwinian theory. And this is, that even as females of the proto-human species were having purely accidental, random changes that just happened to lead them in the direction of becoming human, the males of the species would have to keep having their own mutations—purely accidental changes, mind you, that, once again, just happened to lead chimpanzee-like creatures into becoming human—that would, at each and every point in this process taking tens or hundreds of thousands of years, adjust the males to the changes in the females. Darwinists will say: But of course, that is how it happened. A female primate stood a tiny little bit more upright, her vagina moved a tiny little bit forward (and at each point the female individual who had this change would for some reason have a reproductive advantage over all other females and produce more offspring, making that change dominant in the population within a few generations), and a male who—purely by random, accidental mutation—developed corresponding changes in his sexual anatomy would be able to mate more easily and have more offspring with that female. Furthermore, at each stage the necessary change in the male to enable him to mate more easily with the female would have to occur simultaneously with the change in the female in order for the changes in the female to “work” better and be selected!
All that seems vanishingly unlikely, though perhaps one could argue that it is remotely possible. At the same time, returning to the initial problem posed by me in this article, for reptiles that reproduce by sexual intercourse to evolve by Darwinian processes out of amphibians that reproduce by external fertilization, profound organic and behavioral changes would have to be produced by numerous, mutually complementary random mutations which would have to occur simultaneously in the male and female. And that is impossible. Not highly unlikely. Impossible.
Terry Morris writes:
You wrote:Ploni Almoni writes:
Here I go breaking my vow not to argue any more about Darwinism.LA replies:
I thank Ploni for making this point, and I’ve changed the original entry to reflect it. The initial reason I quoted the Taflinger article was to show the reasoning process of Darwinians, that, when faced with a problem such as I describe in the first half of the article, regarding reptile internal fertilization, Darwinians will propose simultaneous changes in the sexes to make this possible. I went looking for articles on the subject, and came upon Taflinger who proposed not just a simultaneous change in the sexes, but a huge simultaneous change in the sexes. He also did it in an amusing way that made it entertaining.Laura W. writes (1-27-08):
Your “Absolute Refutation of Darwinism” is compelling. You did, however, exceed the bounds of propriety and I blushed repeatedly at your precision. Writers have an ancient tradition of resorting to metaphor in these matters, referring to “subverted flowers” and “unsheathed swords.” We live in a hyper-scientific age and I suppose no one is unscathed. :-)
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 23, 2008 10:43 PM | Send