Quote Originally Posted by carinia
e. Research that was completed way, way before the genomes were sequenced. Of course they are going to be unrelated, there is a different sequence of events that happen. It does not change the fact that sexual reproduction evolved in these animals.
What evidence is there that sexual reproduction evolved in these animals?

f. The George C Williams quote about his book is often misquoted. His meaning was to state the book's purpose is to explain some mechanics of sex in biology. He is saying he has answers to questions people have, not that there are no answers. This is even more apparent by your second quote, where he states that GC Williams has ingenous answers.
It seems this statement is not misquoted: ??This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory.? What evidence do you have showing that to be a misquote? How does the second quote confirm your first assertion?

g. Dont know what point your trying to make, but evolution is a long process of tiny, tiny steps.
What evidence is there to support your assertion?

You dont make a pie out of thin air, first you have the crust, then you make the filling, and you put it all together. If you add one cherry at a time, eventually you will get the filling. Makes sense? You don't just go to your cupboard and find a can of filling and say, Gee, someone miraculously put that there!
You are comparing evolution with pies? It is true that pies are not made from thin air and cans of filling don??t appear as the result of natural causes. The pie and the can are evidence of intelligent design. Why do you think the universe and life on earth can appear out of thin air as the result of natural causes but pies and cans must be the result of intelligent design?

I suspect the answer is you have the unsupported and unsupportable preconception that a supernatural Creator is impossible.