Is there any consistency in this world.

One of the big contradictions of the "Enlightenment" has to do with free choice. We are all gifted with the ability to choose although some people lose this gift by the things other people do to them. Most enlightened people claim to believe in choice and even fight wars to give others the benefits of choice, often called democracy. However, these people fail miserably because they don't allow other people to choose what they think and come up with different conclusions. These intellectual nazis persecute people who come up with different conclusions to theirs. Is there any consistency in this world?

Believing a lie

Why should we slavishly stick to a theory that has become a religion? What's wrong with intellectual integrity? Why can't a person believe in something that the "experts" accept? If they are wrong then the whole world is expected to believe in a lie.

Matters of faith.

I suppose it wrong to question the mechanics of something you don't understand, especially when it has to do with meiosis. After all this is accepted fact. Sometimes you just have to believe with matters of faith.

Technical details

If your theory can't explain all the technical details in the scientific process then it becomes faith. The first thing school children are taught about the scientific process is that it should be repeatable. We look at the evidence and then try to explain with an hypothesis. After that we test the hypothesis and change it so that it fits the new data. If a theory can't explain our observations properly it should be changed or even rejected for a better explanation of the facts. As long as people cling to a bad theory they are in the sphere of faith, that is, religion. Why do the US courts support one religion but refuse to support any other religion?

How many gates are there?

I would find it much harder to believe that meiosis evolved from mitosis many times than that it just evolved once, in fact it would be much easier to believe in God than to believe in this impossibility. On the other hand, we end up with a log jam at the one place were meiosis evolved and it means that every sexually reproducing organism has to go through this gate. We have to have this gate very early in the evolutionary history so all these organisms can get through it. However, there are both animals and plants that reproduce asexually. We must then postulate that there are two gates, one before the meiosis gate and one after the meiosis gate, to evolve from the plant kingdom to the animal kingdom. This is getting very complicated and even supersititious.

Did it only happen once?

What are the chances that two episodes of meiosis would occur at nearly the same time so that they could then be involved in sexual reproduction? Did mitosis evolve into meiosis once or many times? Surely you have to be able to believe anything if you believed that this could occur many times. However, if it only occurred once there would be a huge blockage in the evolutionary tree because there are both plants and animals that reproduce sexually. So did the sexual and asexual branches divide after this miraculous event?

Meiosis

How did meiosis evolve from mitosis? Did this occur twice or were the first examples of sexual reproduction hermaphrodite?