|Feature Article - February 2018|
|by Do-While Jones|
Here is the latest installment of our annual look at how sexual reproduction is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.
Valentineís Day reminds us of love and sex. Traditionally, our February newsletter has a feature article about sex because sexual reproduction is perhaps the strongest argument against evolution. We encourage you to go to our index of previous newsletters 1 and take the links to previous February issues to see how many different ways sexual reproduction is inconsistent with the theory of evolution. It might blow your mind.
It amazes us that evolutionists have used the sexual argument below as evidence of evolution. Hereís what Wikipedia says:
Similar to the laryngeal nerve in giraffes, the vas deferens is part of the male anatomy of many vertebrates; it transports sperm from the epididymis in anticipation of ejaculation. In humans, the vas deferens routes up from the testicle, looping over the ureter, and back down to the urethra and penis. It has been suggested that this is due to the descent of the testicles during the course of human evolutionólikely associated with temperature. As the testicles descended, the vas deferens lengthened to accommodate the accidental "hook" over the ureter. 2
Notice how skillfully Wikipedia mixed fact with speculation. The first sentence of this quote is true. The last sentence has absolutely no evidence to support itóbut is stated as a fact.
Wikipedia talks about the descent of the testicles as if there is some evidence that the testicles were once in the ďoriginal location of the testes,Ē and that they moved down some time later. How do they know where the testes once were? The truth is they donít. They just assume the testes were once inside the body cavity and moved to a sac outside the body presumably because sperm canít take the heat very well, or perhaps because sperm are (accidentally ) programmed to go looking for eggs when their temperature increases to 98.6 degrees.
Itís tempting to get distracted by a discussion of why a sperm looks for eggs, penetrates an egg when it finds one, and completes the chromosome once inside the egg. Those are good, valid questions; but that would lead to a discussion of an old Woody Allen comedy, and I really donít want to go there. I still canít get that image of a neurotic little sperm anxious for action out of my mind, no matter how hard I try.
The question is, ďWhy do the evolutionists think the testes moved?Ē Bear in mind that there isnít any evidence that the testes have ever been anyplace else. Modern dogs donít have internal testes, either. If one could find an ancient breed of dog that had internal testes, that would be evidence of movement. But no scientist has ever seen any evidence of any species in which testes moved from inside the body to outside the body.
For some reason, evolutionists must believe testicles havenít always been where they are now. What is that reason? Quite simply, they donít believe in creation. If evolutionists admit the testes have always been where they are now, they have to admit they were created to be in that position. That is unacceptable to them.
The evolutionist who wrote the Wikipedia article says the alleged movement of the testicles is evidence of common descent. He just states that testes moved, and it proves evolution.
Some evolutionists go further and argue that this either proves that God doesnít exist, or is a very bad designer if He does exist. Why make the sperm take such a long route when there is such an obvious shortcut?
I donít know why the vas deferens is so longóbut I can guess. I freely admit that this is a guess based upon experience working in fluid dynamics many years ago. Immediately after graduating from high school (1966) I got a summer job in the University of Nebraska hydrodynamics laboratory. The three experiments we were working on had to do with submarine rudder designs, bi-stable fluid amplifiers, and arterial blood flow. The latter research is relevant because the flow of blood through an artery is probably similar to the flow of semen through the vas deferens.
We pumped spurts of water (we didnít use real blood) through a rubber tube (we didnít use real arteries) which had tiny holes every few inches, allowing us to measure the pressure at various distances down the tube. As you can imagine, at the beginning of the tube the pressure fluctuated greatly with each spurt, but the pressure differences became less farther from the input. We were interested in how much the tube diameter and elasticity affected the differences in pressure. Those details arenít relevant to the present discussion. The point is simply that a long elastic tube converts a squirt into a steady stream. That is an experimentally verified fact.
Without going into graphic detail, letís politely say that a long vas deferens will affect fluid flow in a way that might be beneficial, so the long route might not be such a bad design after all.
The evolutionistsí argument that a short vas deferens would be better than a long one is a philosophical argumentónot a scientific one. They canít say a shorter vas deferens would be 18.3% better because there are no scientific measurements to support their baseless opinion.
Evolutionists who donít believe the Bible (which is the only source of information about God) claim to know what God would do. They think God would not have chosen this route for the vas deferens (or created a ďbackwards eye,Ē either). That makes about as much sense as me saying that I donít believe Zeus would throw lightening bolts with his left hand because if Zeus really did exist, he would be right-handed.
We arenít going to argue about what the God of Abraham did, or would doówe are merely saying that any such argument is religious, not scientific. For an evolutionist to say that evolution must have caused the testes to move because God would not have designed the vas deferens that way is a religious argumentónot a scientific one.
The route the vas deferens takes may or may not be optimal. Regardless, if it werenít sufficiently effective, neither you nor I would be here. The route is good enough. That doesnít prove the route evolved that way, nor does it prove the route was designed that way.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month