A little light reading for you, Brazuca. Try Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", where you will find a thorough examination of the scientific project. Good science, according to Popper's argument (generally accepted by both scientists and philosophers of science) should aim to circumvent the use of induction. A theory holds good only as long as experiments designed to falsify the theory fail. Once the theory is falsified, it is replaced by a new, or at least modified theory. And, yes, this, too demands faith – paradoxically a faith in scepticism. But life itself demands faith. We take it on faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, because it has always done so in the past. We take it on faith that the pavement we are about to step on will remain solid under our feet, because it has always done so in the past. Induction is a fallacious form of reasoning, but unavoidable, a "useful fiction". To do away with inductive reasoning would lead to a devastating epistemological paralysis. We need that kind of faith. But not all of us need religious faith, and it's logical sleight of hand to conflate the two.

Oh, and apropos partially developed sexual organs – maybe animals with more nerve endings around the area were keener to have sex, and hence reproduced more. Not that Darwin is the last word on the subject. You might, if you liked, look at Eldredge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium, which holds that evolution consists of long periods of stasis, punctuated by major mutations ("saltations" or "hopeful monsters"). With this theory, we can postulate that there may never have been a period in which organisms had partially developed sexual organs. It's just that, though, a theory. As is Darwin's. It just happens that both have considerable explanatory power. To many minds, rather more than has the Revealed Truth.

Anomie, I take it your reference to Karl Popper is with regard to his theory of falsifiability. But this position seems self-refuting to me. After all, is the statement "if a theory is falsifialble then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not scientific" falsifiable? In other words, does Karl Popper's theory pass its own test?

As to your attempt to answer my question regarding partially developed sexual organs, it still doesn't solve the problem of how animals reproduced in between the transition from one form of reproduction to another. After all, we would have needed with humans, for example, a vagina and womb and what have you already prepared to receive insemination via the male's reproductive organs -- not partly prepared or almost-ready-just-give-us-a-few-more-millennia prepared female sexual organs. Sexual organs would have to be ready-made, complete, and so Eldredge and Gould's "punctuated equilibria" hypotheses doesn't offer an answer to my question since it still posits transition periods spanning millennia.

I would very much like to find an answer to my question regarding partially developed sexual organs if it's at all possible. If anybody could help me with this problem, it would be greatly appreciated.