Sex Could Not Possibly Have "Evolved:"

My opponent wrote: "the egg evolved before the chicken." Actually, the chicken egg did not evolve -- it was designed simultaneously with the chicken. " We see several examples of egg-laying animals in the fossil record," No animal other than a chicken has ever laid a chicken egg, and no chicken egg has ever produced any other type of animal other than chickens. " some of which are ancestral to chickens (directly or indirectly)." No they weren't. Which species other than chicken are you claiming ever laid a chicken egg? You need to identify the name of the species. SPOILER: You can't do so because you are simply lying. ""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." That is true: I do not have a religion, but your religion is called darwinism. " However, since I'm an atheist" There is no such thing as an atheist, actually: Your religion is faith-based, evidence free, and called darwinism. "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." My opponent failed to counter the above-stated fact in any way: It remains valid, true, and 100% unchallenged. ""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." See attached video in my OP. ""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"?" Someone who follows your religion, darwinism. 3. The Theory of Evolution very much does describe" It describes fantasy only, and offers absolutely no evidence for any of it. ""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."" 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." Not true -- some plants reproduce sexually. "Now, despite what you may think, asexual reproduction isn't necessarily the best thing for some organisms. " I never claimed it was, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "Sexual reproduction in multi-cellular organisms, when combined with a variation in genetics compiled alongside mutations, produces a much "faster evolution"" No it doesn't. ""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. " See video in my OP. "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" Exactly who or what did the asexually reproducing creature organism supposedly "select" in order to supposedly give rise to at least two sexually-reproducing creatures, one male and one female, in your view? "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."" You have failed to provide evidence of such a mechanism, so you lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =) "I think I have suffiently explained" That is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact. "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" No it isn't. "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" That is ludicrous -- sexual reproduction CANNOT take place without sexual organs. You lost this debate, and you lost it hard. Thanks for your time! =)