So I once was a very strong Evolutionist. I really put a lot of stock in the theory until I realized at key points it started to break down. So lately I have been looking back into this theory, wondering where progression has gone in it, any headway has been made, and I have been reading pro-evolution books (including http://www.eruditor.com/exec/books/item/9780737720983.html.en?currency=USD) and anti-evolution books (including http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-not-scientific-interlude-evolution/dp/0962387215/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204140324&sr=1-1)

And I have questions NEITHER book can answer, or arguments I have found completely stupid. I am a Christian, obviously, and wanted to know the following from a Creationist standpoint :

ON GENDER :

• How did genders evolve? Man and Woman are very -very- different from one another. From function, to what hormones are released in our brains, to how we mature to give birth, to how we think, and even our muscle mass and bone structure.
• How then did two creatures evolve through a gradual process over billions of years to be so -different- an compatible at the same time?
• What happened to the first ’sexed’ creature?
• Why didn’t the first sexed creature die out, because there was no opposite sexed gender to breed with?
• How did the first gendered creature produce young? (Given mutants in the genetic code are usually sterile, or their young are sterile. The code ‘correcting the mistake’ through either making offspring is near mathematically impossible from a micro-biotic and genetic level)
• If the lizard theory is correct with the switching gender, why would we evolve to require genders to begin with if we could reproduce without another sex?
• If evolution progresses a species and breeding ‘weeds out errors’ (the inbreeding problem) in the parent genetic (providing 1/2 chromosomes from one parent and 1/2 from the other) code, why are there still errors in the code, that say ’skip’ generations?
• If evolution progresses a species and breeding ‘weeds out errors’ (the inbreeding problem) in the parent’s genetic code (providing 1/2 chromosomes from one parent and 1/2 from the other), what then determines the ‘bad’ half of the genetic code, and why to more desirable traits get left in 1/2 of the code, while less desirable traits get included? Why is there not consistent exclusion of inferior genes?
• Why do recessive genes dominate dominant genes (such as blue eyes or red hair), through genealogy as far as thirteen generations prior to the new person?

On further points of breeding :

One of the books made a very good point. (which I wished to elaborate on) Please imagine if you would. You have a superior German Shepard. He is quick, strong, agile, intelligent, a true hunter, a regal dog. You wish to have this German Shepard sire puppies, so they can be as quick, agile, intelligent, hunters, and regal. Would you…

1. Carefully select the dog that would be the bitch to your sire?
2. Let the dog loose in a room of random bitches, and let him choose his mate?

Why?

Now, most dog breeders cringe at the second option. I will tell you why. The dog does not care whom he sires. He is not driven to select an intelligent, agile, quick, strong, hunter. He is designed to breed with whichever bitch is in heat. It doesn’t even have to be a German Shepard. It could be genetically blind, deaf, and have one leg. It could be a stupid full sized inbred poodle. Further, let us take this to the wild, where a male is merely concerned about distributing its genetic code to as many females as possible. It is -not- picky. The females rarely are as well. If you have a superior animal in a flock of ‘ordinary’ animals, the superiorities of that animal is -bred out- of subsequent generations. You come back down to a ‘common stock’. You do not get multiple animals with favorable qualities, instead you get the favorable qualities bred out of superior animal’s off spring.

Please explain how this gradual process works, when this evidence produces the opposite effects. Thank you.