Darwin’s Sex Problem: No Theory for the Sexes and Sexual Reproduction

As a young boy, around the age of twelve, when I learned of Darwin’s theory of evolution, something in me said, “Something is wrong here.” I recall thinking it was one thing for a single-celled organism to come into existence in the first place without cause (and still today, it cannot be replicated in a laboratory), which already blew my mind. But then I learned that in order to reproduce life the single cell had to split (by way of a process called fission). I supposed this was doable, but why didn’t the first single cell die before evolution led it to eventually split? I left that idea alone. However, one day, I asked myself, “Wait a second! When did gender come about? How did the two sexes evolve, and how did sex itself happen?

I was informed by naturalist teachers that a male and female came into existence for most organisms somewhere along the evolutionary journey, and reproduction between all these male and female species happened through some type of sexual activity, which produced either a male or female within that kind.

That leap from asexual reproduction by fission into another single-celled organism to sexual reproduction by male and female producing either a male or female caused my head to explode. I could not fathom how sexual reproduction originated in the scheme of evolution. It was too complex, even as a random happening.

Nevertheless, I was told that it did indeed happen, because “evolution is true.” Obviously, we can observe that both male and female are here today and sexually reproduce, so this leap did originate somehow. Eventually, I recognized the type of reasoning here. This conclusion is drawn based on the presupposed beliefs and assumptions inherent in the worldview of evolution, and these beliefs serve as the justification for the conclusion. Years later, I saw this when an atheist friend told me, “I know it is next to impossible for the complexities of life to exist, but there is no God, so it had to happen by chance since we are here in complex forms.”

I had to scratch my head.

A Million Monkeys Over a Million Years

I recall hearing the analogy that for all of life to have evolved by chance with the complexity we observe, with all the coded information that is predictive, deterministic, and consistent, would be like putting a million monkeys in a room for a million years at typewriters. Eventually, at least one monkey would compose all of Shakespeare’s works. However, with one mistake, the monkey would have to start over. “To be or not to be, that is the banana.” 

What disturbed me then, and still somewhat today, is the evolutionist’s dismissal of this analogy. Yet, as a boy, I had enough logic about probability to say, “I find sexual reproduction by male and female as something that just evolved by chance to be nearly impossible.”

But scientists hang on to a natural explanation for everything, which I appreciate since I believe in the scientific method, but that’s the point. Males and females exist, so where is the empirical evidence of them emerging and reproducing as we have set forth here? All of this happened by chance, so says the naturalist. And they display annoyance when we add, “So, with enough time, typewriters, and monkeys, we will peer over a monkey’s shoulder to read Romeo and Juliet?” They reduce the analogy to silliness, but all assertions need analogies. This is a valid argument related to probabilities. That’s why some scientists agree, “Given the monkeys did not die and had enough time at the typewriters, pecking away eight hours a day, and starting again with one mistyping, it would eventually happen.” 

Darwin’s Sex Problem

Then one day many years later I read the title of a book that dealt with the exact idea I had grappled with as a boy: Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem: Exposing Evolution’s Fatal Flaw—The Origin of Sex.

That got my attention.

In this book, Dr. F. LaGard Smith wrote,

The first-ever generation of sexual reproduction would have required: 1) a never-before-seen male organism and a novel female organism, 2) magically having compatible chromosomes, and 3) a death-defying process of precisely halving their chromosomes, mixing them together in a revolutionary way, and then recombining to produce, not a clone (as in asexual replication), but a unique offspring unlike any on the planet. Not to mention the minor details of geographic proximity and an evolved instinct to mate—all absolutely required in Round One of sex to start the sexual ball rolling.

As I understand it, these are valid assertions thus far. As for males and females, sexual dimorphism (the gender differences) is understated as a complex issue. As for chromosome compatibility, which is required for effective genetic recombination during sexual reproduction, it is a complex issue. Chromosome halving, known as meiosis, is complicated because origination is complex. Geographic proximity and instinct also create complexity alongside the evolution of sexual reproduction. Furthermore, these have been studied since Darwin acknowledged his sex problem, though he would not have expressed it this way!

Yet, early on, I felt like my thinking lacked intelligence. However, not only does the above research confirm the mind-boggling complexity, most scientists would say about the origins of the sexes themselves and of sexual reproduction between them that we have no single theory to explain the existence of the sexes and sexual reproduction. Let me repeat: no single theory.

Theories About the Benefits of Sexual Reproduction

Yes, scientists give the impression there is a solid theory, but they articulate the benefits of sexual reproduction in the evolutionary scheme, not how the sexes and sexual reproduction originated. 

As for the benefits of the sexes and sexual reproduction we read of the following:

• Recombination Advantage: In exchanging genetic material between males and females, sexual reproduction generates offspring with combinations of genes that enable better adaptability to the environment. 
• Muller’s Ratchet: Sexual reproduction between males and females purges harmful mutations that emerge from asexual organisms.
• Repair of DNA Damage: In exchanging genetic material, DNA can be repaired, which connects with recombination advantage.
• Benefit in Fluctuating Environments: When environments can change a lot and unpredictably, sexual reproduction enables better adaptation.
• Selective Advantage: Sexual reproduction between males and females creates beneficial competition and produces better offspring.

However, these topics do not explain the initial origin of the sexes and sexual reproduction. They only address the benefits of the sexes and sexual reproduction.

Understanding the Naturalistic and Empirical Inquiry

I do not lack empathy for the scientists on this front. I understand when they say, “We are naturalists and hold to a natural explanation of everything. So, we cannot write academic articles about God creating males and females if that’s where you are headed. That would be non-natural. We hold to a natural explanation for the origin of the sexes and sexual reproduction. We will not entertain that God made us male and female. That is religion.”

I do understand. I would not like it if a Hindu declared, “The gods brought all of this about. End of story.”

However, these same scientists would also have to admit, “At this juncture in our research, we do not have a single theory on how sexual reproduction originated in the theory of evolution. We have no idea how sexual reproduction evolved. We know the benefits of sexual reproduction, but we have no evidence or hypothesis on how sexual reproduction came into existence.” 

The Search Continues: How Did the Sexes Evolve?

So, where does this leave us? You and I can enjoy an honest and humble discussion on what we know and don’t know about the origination of the sexes and sexual reproduction. We can engage with curiosity and fascination with what eludes us and why. Truly, we encounter a complexity that not only humbles us but blows the mind in attempting to make sense of it. One day the mystery of gender and reproduction will no longer perplex us as new discoveries emerge. Then again, perhaps we will realize that some mysteries are beyond our mental prowess as we lack reasonable explanations.

For me, I overhear Jesus, who said in Matthew 19:4, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?”

Again, this is for me. Everyone else must decide.

 I take what Jesus said by faith. But that’s not too much of a challenge since I am still asked by evolutionists to take by faith that Darwin did not have a sex problem, and I think he did.