Evolutionary Logic: In the beginning were Adam and Steve

Fross, IMHO, the most intriguing question is WHY to have sexual reproduction in the first place, since the cell self replication works just fine... Off course, there are many questions we don't know the answer yet, like how can you have multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cell beings... Than, how the organs evolved, and why... And than, why do wee need asexual and sexual reproduction... Sladjo

Gene transfer is something that needs to work all at once. And I would assume that's pretty darn complex. So what you said is a very broad outline. But there needs a lot more explaining to see if you can get from A to B. geoffrobinson

i think the "transition" would be an organism that could reproduce asexually and sexually. The very first forms of life that produced sexually (some form of gene transfer) would have been the same sex since there would be no reason for sexual diversification yet. Fross

This is just an example of sensationalist headline writing. Proposing that the first form of sexual reproduction was isogamous isn't even close to an "Adam and Steve" model of early human reproduction. Reed Orak

Besides the paradox mentioned in the article, does anyone know how Darwinists would explain going from self-replication to reproduction in general. 1 cell divides and becomes 2 turns into 2 cells forming offspring. Is there a conceivable step-by-step theory for that? geoffrobinson