Quote# 75723

If Evolution is true, then why only females can give birth?
Female mammals give birth. They say species pass on genes to ensure the survival of their kind.....so is it not faster and better if both gender can give birth instead of just one??

If both can give birth, then genes are passed to a faster rate and it could also improve the survival rate of the species.

Many species faced extinction so why didn't they evolved to have male species to give birth?

But this will never happen because God designed only a female can give birth!! (Genesis chapter)

Really, it is sad for someone to ignore the creator Jesus Christ.

If you think evolution is true, then can you explain why only the female gender can reproduce??

White Shooting Star of HK, Y! answers 85 Comments [8/31/2010 4:21:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 89

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 4 | bottom

Percy Q. Shunn

*massive facepalm*

8/31/2010 4:22:51 AM


I assume he doesn't understand that evolution doesn't simply run on an individualistic scale.

8/31/2010 4:23:00 AM

If God is real then why are kittens cute? Surely it makes no sense for God to make baby cats cute.

8/31/2010 4:41:49 AM

London Jew

Earthworms and snails. If creation is true, why do snails get twice the fun?

8/31/2010 5:03:24 AM


> They say species pass on genes to ensure the survival of their kind.....so is it not faster and better if both gender can give birth instead of just one?? If both can give birth, then genes are passed to a faster rate and it could also improve the survival rate of the species.

There are haploid organisms. Most are plants, fungi and other not particularly genetically complex things.

If the chromosome copies come from two sources (i.e., aside of the gametes, most of the organism's cells are diploid), there's greater genetic variance; traits that show up in parents inherit to the the offspring. Also, it helps to combat chromosome defects and genetic disease: in haploid organisms, all of the genetic defects appear as is, while diploid organisms have redundant copies of the genes in question. So, diploidy actually improves the organism's chances of survival.

(I know this, and I'm not a biologist. I'm a bloody programmer. I was awake in the biology classes and can use Wikipedia, dammit. Why can't you?)

8/31/2010 5:06:56 AM


In fairness, while he probably has no idea he's done it, he has touched on an issue that puzzled biologists for a long time. The existence of different sexes makes reproduction massively inefficient, and it's only relatively recently that solid evidence has been found for the Red Queen hypothesis (mainly in snails - look into it, it's really awesome). As WWWWolf says, he could have just used wikipedia and worked it out himself, but for a fundie this is actually a pretty intelligent question.

8/31/2010 5:22:06 AM

...because God designed only a female can give birth!!
Did you know male sea horses are the ones who give birth? The female lays her eggs in the male where they are then fertilised, and when small sea horses are ready to pop out, they do so. From the male.

And if we put up this hypothetical scenario where sex gets both the male and the female pregnant, then they would be very helpless during that pregnancy. Have you ever seen a pregnant woman close to giving birth? Now imagine all adults of a species running about like that... in nature.
Yes, I do know that humans don't breed every year, but most animals do.
And if emperor penguins were to do something retarded like have both the males and the females lay eggs, then they'd surely all die out since they are dependant on having two parents take care of one egg. One more egg, and either the parents would die of starvation because noone came to take over the incubation for them, or they'd neglect at least one of the eggs, making both of them laying completely pointless.

8/31/2010 5:22:16 AM


You have got to be fucking kidding me. My stupidometer just broke.

8/31/2010 5:22:43 AM

Overpopulation tends to actually kill off species.

8/31/2010 5:33:43 AM

Mister Spak

If you think creation is true, then can you explain why the ocean's near the shore?

8/31/2010 5:36:34 AM

spam hammich

Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation will clear this matter up. The part about slime mold genders is mind boggling.

8/31/2010 5:39:55 AM

Doctor Whom

I love the argument "If evolution is true, then why can't we ... ?" The people who use that argument never stop to think that it can easily be changed to "If we're intelligently designed, then why didn't the intelligent designer equip us to ... ?"

8/31/2010 5:41:55 AM

Big Jilm

Male seahorses give birth, if I remember correctly. So I assume you'll be renouncing your faith now?

Oh, and your post is retarded, kid. Read a fucking book.

8/31/2010 5:42:31 AM

There are various speiceis that can due to evolutionary pressures in there past change gender if none of the opposite gender are availible, FAIL!

8/31/2010 5:46:43 AM



8/31/2010 5:56:19 AM


Even if we assume that both genders giving birth is optimal (it's not), evolution doesn't always give us an optimal 'design'. For example, the vertibrate eye has a blind spot because the optic nerve passes through the retina, great apes have a defective vitamin C gene, humans often have back problems because of the use of a quadrupedal body plan for bipedal motion, etc. And while some hermaphrodic species have all members being capable of reproduction, most don't because they haven't evolved a successful strategy using that and in some cases (as #1200491 pointed out with his Emperor penguin example) this would be detrimental to a species without a major overhaul to both their environment and their behavior.

@Dicrocoelium- It might have been a decent question, if he had actually asked it as a question, but to him it was a rhetorical question used to set up his preaching of the non-answer of "god did it" and is supposed to be a "Gotcha!" question rather than a legitimate inquiry.

8/31/2010 6:07:07 AM

Blaidd Drwg

Having only one sex able to bear young appears to be the optimum setup for a number of reasons:
It reduces the number of individuals who are burdened with gestation in half.
It requires a gene shuffling in every offspring, which allows for greater selection of favorable traits.
It encourages male protection drive - to ensure female safety during reproductive span, as well as access to females.

Just my tuppence

8/31/2010 6:21:31 AM


Why haven't sharks evolved frickin' laser beams on their heads? That would definitely give sharks a survival advantage.

8/31/2010 6:26:10 AM

Evil European Atheist

1/ First, animal are neglectable fraction of Earth's lifeform. Therefore gender is irrelevant as far as bacteria, Archaea, Fungi are concerned.

2/Second, for reproduction, male do their part to. Have you ever heard of spermatozoid ?

3/Hermaphroditic animal ?

4/ You fail biology forever.

8/31/2010 6:29:01 AM


"Really, it is sad for someone to ignore the creator Jesus Christ."

Umm, he's not the creator, God was. Are you sure you're a christian?

8/31/2010 6:48:23 AM


"If Evolution is true, then why only females can give birth?"

If Creation is true, then if God can make things come to life (Adam & Eve; Jesus making Lazarus come to life), why can't human males?

Non sequitur, much?

8/31/2010 6:52:27 AM


Doctor Whom, I love that kind of question myself, it insinuates the idea that evolution has a plan.
Fair enough, for a creationist, they like to think that everything has a plan but evolution is more of a 'best fit' sort of beast.

8/31/2010 6:53:43 AM

Doubting Thomas

One word: Seahorses.

One more word: Earthworms.

And if both genders did develop the ability to give birth, you fundies would be harping about how evil those gay animals are and how it goes against God's plan.

8/31/2010 6:56:21 AM

D Laurier

"If Evolution is true,"...
... Then evolution must be a statement.
But evolution is NOT a statement, it is a PROCESS.

8/31/2010 7:06:39 AM


How is babby formed?

8/31/2010 7:50:48 AM

1 2 3 4 | top: comments page