How could evolution have produced male and female?

Consider this

Mysteries In Science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zTXxpXOoe0

The Young Age of the Earth

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-127254205...

The Origin of Man by Dr. Duane Gish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3FZDysZKFQ

The Origins of Life

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3181822797...

Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record - Part 1 of 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NkO6fQvydM

Skull Fossils - As Empty as the Evolutionary Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yu5jN897kM

Neanderthals - Smarter Then We Thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxL636n3w2o

Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVvGByvp13Q

Atheist's NightMare: Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqoCGPnVmE

Our Solar System: Evidence For Creation

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-253536904...

Even in evolution there needs God's intervention, that a male and female of a new species evolve simultaneously or at least a new counterpart of the opposite sex get evolved in the life span of the first evloved new individual of a purticular new species.

Don't ask such difficult puzzling questions to the intelligent scientists of etheists!

Sex, biologically defined as the exchange of genetic material, began before there was a differentiation of sexes. Bacteria, which as you noted reproduce asexually, have sex. They swap genetic material. This blows your contention that simultaneous mutations would have had to occur. There is no irreducible complexity here. It was all a gradual, evolutionary development.

Why do people who have obviously never taken a Biology class think they can discover a fault in scientific thinking that will overturn the basic paradigms of Biology?

I'm no scientist, but i believe its difficult to pinpoint exactly when male and female genders appeared. It is possible that it appered simultaneously in many organisms of many species. However, posting this in R&S section (specially since the question doesn't have one single relgious/spiritual word), it looks like you're desperately trying to fit adam and eve into evolution.

Male and female didn't form separately, genius, same species, same everything, just a couple of differing organs. Sexual reproduction evolved because it's a better system, and mating is an instinct (except in humans, it seems, because our survival is in no way threatened anymore. Except by ourselves, and if that happened, reproducing more wouldn't help one bit) There's a relatively equal number of males and females because genetics ensure that both are equally likely. We are animals. We still go in heat, but now our senses are dulled, so we don't pick up on it and it's not necessary to anyway.

There are many theories of creation besides fiat creationism, where everything was created 6,000 years ago in six literal days. The day/age theory believes there were great expanses of times between the days. "Day" is used in many scriptures figuratively for a period of time, like, "in that day." And the days of creation can be ages of millions of years between the days.

You can find marine fossils of extinct animals at the tops of mountain ranges that were once part of the ocean floor. Not only does South America and Africa look like they fit together like pieces of a puzzle, but you can find similar mineral deposits along each's shores showing exactly where they once fitted together, even lava flows that compassed both continents when they were once joined together.

A problem Christians have is they often believe a very narrow interpretation of creation that the world can easily recognize as nonsense. Many Christians who vocalize their narrow interpretation of Genesis make the Bible look like foolishness to the world.

If you compare the days of creation in Genesis it matches up fairly well with the same order science gives. First you have God creating the heavens (stars, etc.) then the earth.

Comparable to science the earth begins as an empty world without a set form, then you have dry land followed by oceans. You have plants before intelligent life. The first intelligent life is in the sea. Then you have birds. We know today that birds are descendants of dinosaurs. Mammals didn't rise until later. Science and the order of creation are following the same order.

On day 6 the KJV says, cattle, beasts, man. The Hebrew word translated cattle is mammals in general. Beast is a more specific wild animal, and then man. If you categorized these scientifically it would be class, genus, species.

Something else to consider is that Adam and Eve were not created until after the seventh-day, and in a day/age theory the man on the sixth day is not the same as Adam "after" the seventh day. Could it be that science is correctly observing the order of creation?

This would explain cave men, and where Cain and Seth found wives, if man created on the sixth day is different era from Adam created after the seventh day.

Now, I believe the bible is without error. It's more amazing to me that scripture could line up with the same order science gives for the creation of the world.

Now, many Christians have a narrow view, to where they put God in a box and not allow Him to work in any sort of an evolutionary process. This is done to fit their narrow interpretation of Genesis, handed down long ago without the benefit of scientific facts.

They latch onto every little thing some creation scientist says like it is the gospel and discount any contrary evidence because it doesn't fit your perception of creation. Christianity, which is stuck in ancient traditions, needs to revamp their view of creation that restricts what God can do.

Look at the different animals that have developed in Australia. The Aborigines people have been there for 35,000 plus years, and have developed an internal organ that no other race on earth has. They have a scent gland on the sides of their faces. It's because they were isolated in Australia.

There are other theories of creation: day/age theory, theistic evolution, etc., that allows the creation story in Genesis to agree with observable science and not make Christians look like so narrow minded.

You do know that every animal develops first into a female in the womb...then those becoming male lose their female organs and develop male ones (simplified version LOL).

Its males that have evolved.

Even single celled (asexual) organisms have means of exchanging their DNA by plasmids.

I don't think you ever had any training in even basic biology.

In the area around Chernobyl, left-over radiation has caused earth-worms to develop sexes; so it's either genetic mutations, or God is performing random mini-miracles...

There are many steps in the evolution of sexual reproduction that you have left out. For instance, there are primitive forms of life that have both male and female organs. I am not a biologist or a paleontologist, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was an intermediate step between asexual and sexual reproduction.

Isn't Mary giving birth to Jesus asexual reproduction? Or are you acknowledging the story as myth? You use the term "suddenly" referring to genetic mutation resulting in bisexuality. Mutations are processes that can take millions of years. Millions, not thousands as creationists would have us believe.