If inter-species mating can't be productive, does it mean that male and female genders somehow co-evolved?

Most of "these exceptional and exponentially improbable events of nature" are invented by Creationists because they are so dead set against learning any science that they slog around in waist-deep ignorance all the time. Competent students of nature have bothered to learn what variations actually exist, and don't make such silly mistakes.

After multicellular living forms developed, the next advance was cellular specialization: the ability to have different cells with the same genetic heritage express different forms and capabilities (e.g., blood cells, liver cells, skin cells, muscle cells, nerve cells, etc.). This allowed the construction of specialized organs (gills, eyes, stomachs, lungs, etc.), including specialized organs which performed parts of the process of reproduction.

Each organ is an expenditure of resources. As long as each necessary function is performed by some part of the population, it's not necessary that all individuals perform all functions of procreation. Whereas individuals don't survive without hearts, they can certainly survive without the full complement of sex organs. So specialization is an advantage to the species, not just in animals but in some plants as well, which means it's so advantageous it gets developed repeatedly, not just once.

This, of course, is a common attribute of most vertebrates and particularly most mammals, so the specialization in such functions is something inherited from our non-human ancestors.

Now here's the part you don't seem to grasp: evolution doesn't happen by the sudden appearance of a completely different species as children of some other species. I realize that's the view of the "X-men" comics, but its wrong. What actually happens is that a whole population, sharing the same gene pool over many generations, slowly changes. Some characteristics disappear, either because they're disadvantageous and prevent the individuals exhibiting them from competing effectively for survival and mates, or because by dumb luck those individuals bearing the genes for that trait happened to die out. Some characteristics spread through the population, because they are advantageous. You're not quite the same as your parents, physically or genetically. Over the long term, the differences add up.

After many generations, the population is different. In some cases, it's different enough to be recognizable as a new species. Because both male and female genders are involved in procreation, both are involved in the change.

As you say, they co-evolved. But not by some sudden accidental mutation, because evolution doesn't work that way--as Darwin pointed out in "The Origin of Species" in the 19th century.

Where do creationists get their bizarre ideas about evolution???? That idea of male and female needing to evolve independently is totally ridiculous.

The first species that developed sexual reproduction evolved into other species that had sexual reproduction. The new species that came up also used sexual reproduction. Every new species that developed from those used sexual reproduction. At no time was it ever necessary for a male and female to develop separately and independently. The earliest individual with one hominid characteristic mated with others in her population, the earliest individual with another hominid characteristic mated with others in his population, and so on, and eventually the hominid characteristics took over in the population and the more ape-like characteristics died out. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

Honestly, the lies creationist leaders feed their followers get more and more ridiculous every year. How can anyone possibly misunderstand evolution enough to think what you just posted? How is it possible to misunderstand science that badly?

The first "male human" mated with other people in his population which were "almost human" by your definition of humans, but of course it's just an arbitrary line you must draw somewhere. Oh, and different "sexes" evolved on bacteria level.

Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

Speciation, the mechanism by which a common ancestor becomes two or more different populations which cannot interbreed, happens when these populations are isolated from one another and accumulate gradual changes. At no point there is an offspring so different from its parents that it cannot breed with the population it's in, that's just ridiculous.

Female

Gendered species have evolved twice in the history of life on Earth. At least twice, with surviving systems of sex chromosomes, that we know of. The XY system and the ZW system.

"Adam Eve story seems less mysterious than these exceptional and exponentially improbable events of nature."

- Oh, Jesus ******* Christ...

The most primitive creatures are both male and female (hermaphroditic).

Some species evolved to specialize though so they diverged into male and female. Even in humans though there are still remnants of the female gender in males - e.g. male nipples which serve no purpose.

at no point would we see an organism giving birth to something that is not of it's own species, that's not how a new species comes to be, it is only through genetic isolation, a small group not being able to 'mix genes' with the rest of the population, do we see enough mutations to produce a new species.

You mean apart from that Adam and Eve were magically produced by a spirit? Yes THAT seems probable! Magical producing of living beings out of thin air have been observed many times and is fully compatible with the laws of nature right? Don't think so. My advice is that you actually study science. Yes, it may seem chocking but when you get use to it it's nice.

The viral eukaryogenesis (VE) theory proposes that eukaryotic cells arose from a combination of a lysogenic virus, an archaeon and a bacterium. This model suggests that the nucleus originated when the lysogenic virus incorporated genetic material from the archaeon and the bacterium and took over the role of information storage for the amalgam. The archaeal host transferred much of its functional genome to the virus during the evolution of cytoplasm but retained the function of gene translation and general metabolism. The bacterium transferred most of its functional genome to the virus as it transitioned into a mitochondrion.

For these transformations to lead to the eukaryotic cell cycle, the VE hypothesis specifies a pox-like virus as the lysogenic virus. A pox-like virus is a likely ancestor because of its fundamental similarities with eukaryotic nuclei. These include a double stranded DNA genome, a linear chromosome with short telomeric repeats, a complex membrane bound capsid, the ability to produce capped mRNA, and the ability to export the capped mRNA across the viral membrane into the cytoplasm. The presence of a lysogenic pox-like virus ancestor explains the development of meiotic division, an essential component of sexual reproduction.

Meiotic division in the VE hypothesis arose because of the evolutionary pressures placed on the lysogenic virus as a result of its inability to enter into the lytic cycle. This selective pressure resulted in the development of processes allowing the viruses to spread horizontally throughout the population. The outcome of this selection was cell-to-cell fusion. (This is distinct from the conjugation methods used by bacterial plasmids under evolutionary pressure, with important consequences.) .... The process resulting from combination of two similar pox viruses within the same host closely mimics meiosis.

[edit]Neomuran revolution

An alternative theory, proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith, was labeled the Neomuran revolution. The designation "Neomuran revolution" refers to the appearances of the common ancestors of eukaryotes and archaea. Cavalier-Smith proposes that the first neomurans emerged 850 million years ago. Other molecular biologists assume that this group appeared much earlier, but Cavalier-Smith dismisses these claims because they are based on the "theoretically and empirically" unsound model of molecular clocks. Cavalier-Smith's theory of the Neomuran revolution has implications for the evolutionary history of the cellular machinery for recombination and sex. It suggests that this machinery evolved in two distinct bouts separated by a long period of stasis; first the appearance of recombination machinery in a bacterial ancestor which was maintained for 3 Gy,[clarification needed] until the neomuran revolution when the mechanics were adapted to the presence of nucleosomes. The archaeal products of the revolution maintained recombination machinery that was essentially bacterial, whereas the eukaryotic products broke with this bacterial continuity. They introduced cell fusion and ploidy cycles into cell life histories. Cavalier-Smith argues that both bouts of mechanical evolution were motivated by similar selective forces: the need for accurate DNA replication without loss of viability.

Male & Female make up the complete species.

that is each taken separately is incomplete.

The total is only achieved by having BOTH male & female present and interacting.

I have no idea as to how the sexually reproductive organisms evolved,

and indeed my spiritual leanings tend toward a GREAT MAKER or

CREATOR of life, but I do NOT subscribe to any of the organized religions,

because the organized religions are all tax-exempt exclusive clubs, not to mention

power trips by such completely mad individuals like the POPE ( etc....)

Story of Adam and Eve suggested; God created Eve, from Adams ribs. How the hell is that less mysterious.