My eyes have been opened. All this time, I’ve simply been taking for granted a common biological theory, and now that I’ve been alerted to the controversy, I’ve had to rethink the evidence. I’ve merely assumed that sexual reproductionism is valid. This fellow has completely ripped the idea apart.
Despite the assertion that the Theory of Sexual Reproduction is “settled” and “well-accepted,” it still remains just one theory. And beneath the veneer of acceptance, controversies abound. Take for instance, the key idea of the conjecture, namely that a “sperm” fuses with an “egg.” No one has actually seen this take place (sperm is supposedly microscopic and invisible to the naked eye, which makes things rather convenient). The only supporting evidence is the fact that one has sex and shoots several milliliters of white-ish liquid into a female partner and nine months later one finds a very young individual where previously there was none. But this is merely correlative evidence and not necessarily a causative one. Not only that, it is a weak correlation. There have been reports of many instances where the production of the white emenation (commonly referred to as “jizz” or “jizzm”) clearly did NOT result in a baby nine months later. Of course, no Sexual Reproductionist has bothered quantifying the correlation by determining its R value. One should also mention that nine months is a very long latency period – and many important factors may be initiated during this time which are themselves the real causative agents or integral supporting events.This is just the beginning. There are other, deeper, problems which are more fundamental to the aforementioned theory. Why, for instance, are there so many sperm (millions, according to the currently accepted hypothesis) when there is only one egg to fertilize? Does this not betray the notion of parsimony which is a central tenet of biological systems?
Problems range far beyond the “sperm-egg fusion” conjecture. Indeed, when it comes to the post-fusion phase – the so-called field of “embryology” – the plethora of questions, issues, contradictions, and plain ignorance is too numerous to state in a short paper such as this. For example, what accounts for the totipotent-pluripotent transition that occurs prior to the blastocyst stage? Why do cells clump together suddenly at the 8-cell stage? What accounts for the trophoblast/ICM differentiation in the 16-cell morula? How can one explain the event known as gastrulation which allegedly occurs at Day 14 – the process which results in the formation of germ cells, and 3 distinct germ layers – a monumental event of “individuation” which even sexual reproductionists have referred to as “miraculous”! These are events that have completely and utterly baffled sexual reproductionists, and have left them stumped. No complete, satisfying, absolutely coherent theory has been proposed to answer these questions – and the best offered are small, qualified conditional theories based on excruciatingly-detailed, molecular-level experiments (possibly overkill, in our scientific opinion) which seem tepid, tentative and inadequate to say the least. Given the fact that such fundamental questions remain unanswered within the current paradigm, one can only question the very foundations upon which this crumbling edifice known as “Sexual Reproduction” is built. In fact, one must wonder how this “theory” became accepted at all.
Whoa. When you put it all that way…
I also realized something else. By a conservative estimate, my wife (she’s the only one who counts) has had sex roughly 3000 times so far, yet she’s only been pregnant 3 times. I can’t even be sure the sexual act was directly responsible for the pregnancies, since it’s not as if we only had sex for procreative reasons, and to be honest, we spend far more time not having sex than we do having it (yes, that does seem a waste! This new theory is ripe with revelations like that.) There does seem to be a disjunct between the action and the consequences. For all I know, there could have been some other completely ordinary, common activity that my wife engaged in that led to reproduction. Maybe housework induces it—which would also explain why men very rarely get pregnant, and which would be an extremely handy excuse I could use.
The author of this learned, scholarly hypothesis actually provides several other much more likely explanations, though—theories that have the weight of tradition and experience behind them.
It’s too bad we’re in the last few weeks of my developmental biology course. I could have presented this at the beginning, and it would have put the whole subject in a radically different light. It would also have simplified the class a great deal to skip over those darned “excruciatingly-detailed, molecular-level experiments”.