Sex Could Not Possibly Have "Evolved:"

"People ask: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"Neither could possibly have come first, because chickens always come from chicken eggs, and chicken eggs always come from chickens."Anyone with a somewhat rudimentary knowledge of evolutionary biology could answer this question: the egg evolved before the chicken. We see several examples of egg-laying animals in the fossil record, some of which are ancestral to chickens (directly or indirectly)."This is an insurmountable conundrum for the believer in atheist Dogma, but not for us Theological Realists:"This is a matter of science, not religion. However, since I'm an atheist and this "insurmountable conundrum" proved no challenge for me, then this claim is quite obviously wrong."The conclusive answer is that the complete system of chickens laying eggs and chickens hatching from chicken eggs must have manifested together, simultaneously. There is no other rational option."As I explained above, this is definitely not the "conclusive answer" or "rational option". "This also means that the complete system had to have been designed and initiated by a conscious, intelligent person or persons. Same goes for gender differentiation."Citation needed."One of the many problems with the so-called "common ancestor" fantasy is that gender-differentiation could not possibly have evolved or developed gradually, from a creature that was not gender-differentiated, as the darwinist claims."A few things:1. What is a "darwinist"?2. There are very few "problems" with the, as you put it, "common ancestor fantasy"3. The Theory of Evolution very much does describe how sex and sexual reproduction evolved"This is because reproduction of gender-differentiated offspring is an "all-or-none" scenario. Gender differentiation must necessarily have manifested 100% complete, with both genders and all of their respective organs and behaviors fully represented, or it could have never manifested at all."Let's establish something before I continue. There are two forms of reproduction; sexual and asexual. The vast majority of all animals reproduce sexually, everything else (including some animals and plants, which can use both forms of reproduction) reproduces asexually. Sexual reproduction requires two participants to engage in the activity, whereas asexual reproduction just requires one organism. Now, despite what you may think, asexual reproduction isn't necessarily the best thing for some organisms. While it allows smaller organisms (such as bacteria) to replicate a large population in very little time, requires little energy, and allows a population to out-do other organisms in the competition for resources, it does very little in terms of providing genetic variation and you would have to wait for a mutation before seeing any sort of genetic variation between one generation and the last/next (in other words, it makes evolution slower for that organism). Sexual reproduction in multi-cellular organisms, when combined with a variation in genetics compiled alongside mutations, produces a much "faster evolution" than you would get with asexual reproduction. "Such simultaneous and complete manifestation of two different genders -- along with their matching yet differentiated sexual organs as well as their matching yet differentiated sexual behaviors -- would necessarily require an immense amount of planning and organization, from an extremely powerful and extremely intelligent conscious designer."Citation needed. "P1: Without a concrete evolutionary mechanism to bring about the "descent" of any gender-differentiated species from any non-gender-differentiated species, gender differentiation could not possibly have "evolved.""Those evolutionary mechanisms are natural selection allowing single-celled organisms to adapt the process of Horizontal Gene Transfer, of which meiosis (the process that allows sexual reproduction to occur) is a form of. "P2: There is no concrete evolutionary mechanism that has ever been observed to bring about the descent of any gender-differentiated species from any non-gender-differentiated species.Conclusion: Therefore gender differentiation could not possibly have "evolved.""I think I have suffiently explained the Evolution of Sex/Sexual Reproduction to my opponent, doing my best to give the explanation of each form of reproduction. As for the video that my opponent has linked, the first argument he puts forth in the video is wrong nearly right off the bat. The video says that sexual reproduction is the least efficient and most problematic type of reproduction, and that asexual is simpler and more efficient. While he is correct about asexual reproduction being more simple and energy efficient, sexual reproduction is far from problematic and has very clear advantages over asexual reproduction, which I have already laid out in this argument. It also makes the same argument that sexual organs (e.g. penis and vagina, and all other related organs) would have had to come about through mutations that were independent of each other. However, sexual reproduction began with single-celled organisms which didn't have sexual organs and would have reproduced sexually via different methods than intercourse. With that said, I am going to discount the video as any additional argument.