If evolution were to be true, then why?

Question

Can't men conceive and give birth to children?

Answer 1

The evidence does not favor evolution! Out of all the fossils that have ever been found (that weren't hoaxes) there has never been one showing the transition from one species to another. Ex. a fish becoming a bird. We all agree with micro-evolution but macro-evolution is imaginary!

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. But what evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed. They want you to think that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.

I dont know why people still believe in the "theory" of macro-evolution!

Answer 2

There are a pair of theories in the back of this, yet something like infinite regression actually says "it is so a techniques back we don't recognize and could not recognize." ideally, we don't recognize what began evolution. yet this must be examined greater heavily between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution remains very especially contested, and a superb type of question its validity interior the sphere of biology. Micro evolution is all approximately adaptaion to outlive. Necessity is the mother of invention...in spite of the shown fact that it could look that plenty it particularly is pronounced in micro evolution is organic probability, not necessity. the two way, survival could be a reliable motivator for adapability. it incredibly is purely a sprint of twisted good judgment, supplies are constrained so a technique or the different a mutation happens which provides one creature a much better side over others (micro evolution)...ultimately those mutations will replace into so super that there is an entire new species (macro evolution). yet there seems to % a driving tension, considering the fact that count properly-knownshows its lowest sturdy point of potential, why could it try to compete? what's the force? of course technological understanding Fiction does ingredient out that radiation can mutate lizards into horribly super hearth respiratory beasts.

Answer 3

Why would evolution favor that? Each sex has its own role to play. You cant really hunt and gather too well or defend yourself or tribe if your 8 months pregnant can you? Also, the 2 sexes make sure genetic material is spread around more efficiently. If men could get pregnant then they could impregnate themselves which would mean that all the genetic material they are carrying would be lost and there would be no opportunity for natural selection.

You need to think this through a little more thoroughly. In every species the 2 sexes have different roles to play. Evolution doesnt make too many mistakes. If you dont believe in evolution you need to be de-brainwashed and maybe go to school or something. Evolution is not a theory, its scientific fact that has been proven. Domestic animals.... enough said. Think about it.

Answer 4

Actually the flaw in your arguement against evolution lies in the reverse of that same question.

"Why can't females impregnate themselves?"

The truth of the matter is, that Hammerhead sharks, normally reproduce through a form of intercourse. Yet, in given situations, the females have been known to impregnate themselves. You can find more on this "Virgin Birth" phenomina here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6681793.stm

So, now when you think about this, it's believed to be done as an adaptation to the shark's enviornment when males are scarce. Now if you define evolution, the shark is doing this to adapt in order to survive, thus how was it gained without evolution? This same biological event has also been seen in bony fish.

So if your arguement for creationism is "Why can't men bear children", I ask you, "Where did an animal that has been seen to breed sexually, gain the ability to reproduce asexually?

I believe a creationist can only argue, "They were touched by the hand of god, just like the Virgin Mary." So if this be the case, I guess God developed a thing for Immaculate Conception in Fish eh?

Answer 5

I don't think that I can form an argument either for or against evolution from that question. The female of the species is defined, in a basic sense, as the one that produces the eggs and generally is the one that lays, or gives birth to it. If "men" were to have that equipment they would be females and vice verse.

On the other hand, several species do blur these lines...

Answer 6

How exactly would that be the result of evolution? It's not advantageous for both genders to get pregnant.

If creationism were to be true, then why?
Can't men conceive and give birth to children?

Answer 7

Because we have women to do that.

Take a look at the animal kingdom... if a frog is isolated from other frogs, it will procreate without a mate. They have even proven this is done in rabbits as well. Something evolution and nature has done to ensure life on this planet, don't you think?

Answer 8

Because if we didn't have men to impregnate women, then women couldn't conceive and give birth to children, either.

??

This is one of the most bizarre questions.

It is far more beneficial to the species to have a good chunk of the population who cannot be made vulnerable by pregnancy. Survival and all. What if the majority of a tribe were all pregnant at the same time? Who would have protected them? Nope, better to have the system we have.

Answer 9

That is the craziest question I have ever seen on YA. Study a little biology and you'll see there would be no point to that. Evolution normally chooses the best path for the propagation of the species. That seem to be male/female sexual reproduction. There would be no point in evolving to have men conceive.

Answer 10

If there were no women perhaps they would, but since there are women, there's no need for man to conceive.

You know, there are some fish that will change gender for breeding purposes. When the need arises, a species will find a way to continue.