Basic HTML Version
necessary to turn to the much more
complicated sexual method?
Sex Vs. No Sex
Indeed, the great advantage of asex–
ual reproduction is its reliability and
simplicity. For one-celled creatures,
simpie division is all that is neces–
sary. On the other hand, sexual re–
production requires two individuals
to find each other and to mate in
order to let their gametes- sperm
and egg- fuse and then divide to
create another organism like them–
selves. Asexual reproduction can
also proceed more rapidly and allow
populations to build up much more
quickly than sexual reproduction.
Since asexual reproduction has so
many advantages. it is difficult to see
why nonsexual creatures would ever
turn to sex; they obviously survive
quite well without it. Witness three
billion years of asexual bacteria! re–
production with no significant
changes.
Of course, sex might produce a
greater variety of offspring, which
could perhaps betler adapt to
changing environments. But no
nonsexual creature could be ex–
pected to "know" that sex is better.
and considering the intricate diffi–
culties in changing from nonsex to
sex, it is not surprising that evolu–
tionary theory is extremely hard
pressed to explain how sex arose.
Take the common dandelion ,
surely an example of a prospering
flowering plant (ask any gardener).
Dandelions are presumably the result
of millions of years of sexual varia–
tion. But in actual fact the dandelion
produces seeds by asexual means!
Every seed is ageneticduplicateofthe
parent. Biologists therefore conclude
that the dandelion has "abandoned"
sex and is thus extremely unlikely to
ever show any significan! change.
Which again emphasizes the basic
paradox of sex. A sexless world–
whether of single- or multiple-celled
organisms- would be a world with
little hope of evolutionary modi–
fication. But for sexless forros of life
to ever evolve by mere mutations
into sexual forros would seem to be
utterly impossible.
Sex,
in
all its many variations, can–
not be the result of chance mutations.
Sex must be the product of a Great
Designer and Creator.
o
The
PLAIN TRUTH April 1978
Evolution,Sex and theAnt
Surprising as it may seem, the tiny
ant poses one of the bi.ggest chal–
lenges to the belief that sex is a
product of evolution and the sur–
viva! of the fittest, or, on the other
hand, that evolution is the natural
result of sexual reproduction. One
problem líes in the existence of
steri le female workers in the ant
community. lndeed, Charles Dar–
win, the father of the theory of
evolution, was concerned that such
neuter worker ants could be "ac–
tually fatal to the whole theory."
In his 1859 book
Origin of Species,
Darwin stated: "With the working
ant we have an insect ditfering
greatly from its parents, yet abso–
lutely sterile; so that it could never
have transmitted successively ac–
quired modifications of structure
or instinct to its progeny....
It
may well be asked, how is it pos–
sible to reconci le this case with the
theory of natural selection?"
And that's precisely the point:
These highly special ized workers
differ greatly from their mother,
father, and even from each other.
Darwin observed that they dif–
fered by "an almost incredible de–
gree." So one might assume they
became specialized by evolution
and natural selection over millions
of years. But they're sterile! So
they couldn ' t possibly have
evolved by passing on character–
istics to their offspring.
But could the queen ant. the
mother of the neuter workers, be
the source of their "evolution"?
Modern-day evolutionists specu–
late that perhaps fortuitous muta–
tions or sexual recombinations in
the genes of ant queens gave rise
to the remarkable variety of highly
adapted workers we now find in
ant colonies. After all. unlike the
workers, queen ants are sexual
creatures. Therefore, according to
evolutionary theory, they might be
expected to more readily evolve,
introducing a wide variety of in–
novations in their offspring.
But the evidence simply does
not support such speculation. Fos–
silized ants-males, females, and
workers dated sorne 70 million
years old- are apparently identical
with species now living! Queen
ants are a result of sexual repro–
duction. Yet the enigma is that sex,
the presumed source of great evo–
lutionary variety and change, has
seemingly failed to effect any sig–
nific~nt
changes since the time of
the fossilized ants. Sex or no sex,
the evidence is that for millions of
years the ant has not evolved.
Surely the tiny ant provides a
major challenge to Darwinian con–
cepts of evolution.
19