Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[Touchstone]

I flat out disagree that science derives its value by being “anti-supernatural” by design. I teach beginning science to my grandkids by having them pick flowers, tear apart leaves, touch pine needles, and open seed pods. This is not anti-supernatural. Rather, this gives them the positive sense of physically exploring the material world to find out how it works. Science derives its value by empirical means. If I choose to add that God created beautiful nature, their “scientific” experience remains intact.

Yes, but only because the “God overlay” is superfluous to the local phenomena they are observing. A flower opening to the sun in the morning does not need any “God action” to account for the phenomenon. As above, God can always be posited as some ultimate telos, removed from the local forces at work, but this is overlay, superfluous for understanding the dynamics they are witnessing.

You add in some theology to your science there, which is your right. But that is what is happening.

Limitations should not be considered as excluding other possibilities.

Yes, that’s precisely why those limitations exist, to exclude categories that corrupt scientific epistemology – natural explanations for natural phenomena, remember. Science is only as good and useful as it is pristine in excluding supernatural explanations.

My error. I forgot that the phrase “truth of life” is often viewed philosophically. How would you express the broadness of biology? Perhaps understanding living organisms is closer to what I meant. But when I think of really understanding, I revert to the idea of the truth of real living life – like human life.

OK, but the point still stands. To the extent you think that your revised idea of “truth of life” is not serviceable by natural explanations, you are right back in the same boat. You have to downgrade that (epistemically speaking) to philosophy or theology, at that point. You only get the fruits of natural epistemology (empirical testing, falisification, prediction tracking, etc.) if you accept natural explanations. If you want to go beyond that, you are out of luck, and have nothing to help you in validating your “truth”, epistemically.

If by rationale, you are referring to the faulty “Evolution takes place in living organisms; therefore, all parts of living organisms have evolved.” I’ve seen posts which used this in some form.

Yeah, I think that logic is easily refuted. What is not easily dismissed is the presence and verifiabiltiy of natural, physical resources and processes, and the conspicuous lack of evidence and verifiability of for any agent or mind that can account for “telic” concepts of biological development. Since works with what it has available, evidentially, and it does not permit just making up explanations that do not obtain or even comport with the available evidence. That makes “design” a non-starter in terms of scientific epistemology, given the evidence we have available.

It is the human species (not gods pushing planets) which challenges both science and scientists. Or better, it is the actions of humans that challenge. A song doesn’t have mass, but it has energy. Gravity doesn’t control music, yet there is momentum.

A thought has energy. Any who doubt this are invited to try thinking without using energy to do it.

Personally, I think that a “god of the gaps” can trainwreck theology, but please don’t ask me to prove that. I also think that your above sentence “Rather, we acknowledge that those factors are both sufficient to explain, predict and model, AND that there is nothing else available to draw upon as explanatory capital.” works two ways. Factors, when applied to the human species, can be both material/matter and immaterial/spiritual. The question remains. Can a scientist, acting as a free individual, explore both kinds of factors? That would be possible if he adapts the last half of your sentence – “AND that there is nothing else available to draw upon as explanatory capital.”

Blessings,
granny

Scientists – all of them, so far as I am aware – do explore both kinds of factors. I think that is not controversial or uncommon at all. What is controversial is "what qualifies as ‘explanatory capital’ on the immaterial/spiritual/theological side?

That’s at least a very difficult question, and I hold it to be an intractable one.

-TS

 

[itinerant1]

Indeed you did not. Neither did I say that you did. We both agree that natural selection is not a random process. I did however say that genetic drift and founder effect were random processes.

I utterly lost confidence in you because you cannot seem to read my mind.

In regard to sexual selection, there is what Darwin thought about the idea, and there are what others have thought about it. I am not up on the very latest assessments of the theory, not that the latest is necessarily the greatest. But I will take a moment and say a few things, and perhaps we are not in genuine disagreement.

It seems to be that Darwin believed that his general theory of natural selection could not account for some of the common differences among the sexes, such as color and various ornamentations. So, the female selects as her mate the most attractive. Hence, the selected male leaves descendants with the pronounced secondary sex characters (cool hairdo, bright colors and no tattoos, etc.). However, how much sexual selection of this nature occurs is inconclusive.

For example, R.A. Fisher notes that if females were to prefer traits that actually reduced the fitness of the males, extinction could result. There is that damned peacock’s tail. How to explain it?

Sexual selection may have played some role in evolution, but who knows for sure whether it is a significant role. The Russian biologist L.S. Davitashvili is attracted to the theory of sexual selection. If he is wrong, perhaps his type will go extinct, as being less fit biologists.

We humans are certainly attracted to the beauty of the opposite sex. I think we can agree on that.

In any case, you were right, most posts were a bit hasty and ambiguous in the wording. But I don’t want to lose track of the main idea that arguments against the theory of natural selection have been made by those who accept evolution generally – descent from common ancestors, and that species are instrumental in producing new species.

 

[edwest2]

To grannymh,

I think you should realize that there is a struggle for power going on right now and science has been enlisted to the cause. Man Created God appears on the sides of buses to add weight to atheist claims. The same with: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. Both are connected to evolution. One is connected to the premise, often mentioned here, that man’s neurological development occurred in a way that increased function to the point that either man could detect god/gods/experience ‘spirituality’ or invented god/gods/spirituality as a coping mechanism on his way to becoming “smarter,” i.e. “modern.”

It needs to be pointed out that on the one hand: Science must exclude the supernatural by design. I agree that supernatural causes should not be the goal, but supernatural events do occur. These, of course, are brushed aside as things science has not explained “yet.” Since those who believe firmly in science have allowed for no other option. However, the Church recognizes miracles and does call in relevant experts through the Congregation for Saints’ Causes. This part of reality must be ignored/minimized since it could be corrosive to non-theists.

Intelligent Design, based on observation of complex systems within cells, interlocking and interdependent, is brushed off as relabeled Creationism, but nothing could be further from the truth. One argument against it is that a ‘God did it’ explanation would render further research pointless. Not true. All of the current biological research deals with currently living things and is primarily focused on (a) killing or disabling certain organisms, (b) finding ways to repair or replace organs in certain organisms, and (c) manipulating certain organisms to produce a product.

A minor deity in the evolution pantheon, Stephen Jay Gould, stated that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently. This violates the intentional order of Creation as defined by divine revelation and renders ‘theistic evolution’ just a play on words, making it not functionally different from current, non-God evolution.

The conflict is here: If we say that God intervened anywhere in evolution, at all, it renders the idea of random mutations and natural selection doing whatever superfluous. But, on the other hand, if God does play a direct causal role (as the Church presents in the document Communion and Stewardship) then Christianity is indeed right not just in a spiritual/symbolic sense but in a very real sense. If you believe the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, then this is further confirmation. This idea is, of course, defused by the “well there are other gods and other religions, so how do we know it is your god?”

Richard Dawkins underlines this when he says (as I heard on TV): “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” As Pope Benedict has said that while science has given us knowledge and insights, there are other areas of reason we still need.

On a Catholic Forum, to dwell only on the strictly scientific aspects ignores these other things which are critical pieces of actual knowledge that we are to spread to others. Who did Jesus die for? Why did He have to die? These are valid questions that cannot be answered by science but can be answered by the Church.

One last thing. If a complex, obviously manufactured object were found on Mars - the conclusion would be that it was clearly designed by an Intelligence. Of course, no scientist would say it is God, they will comfort themselves by saying ‘aliens’ left it, even though no other traces of their existence could be found. But that still leaves the foot of the Intelligence too close to the science lab door. The argument against intelligent design is purely ideological because even if some aspects of life could be ascribed to an unnamed Intelligence, the fear is it would get people to think of that word that begins with a G.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Yes, but only because the “God overlay” is superfluous to the local phenomena they are observing. A flower opening to the sun in the morning does not need any “God action” to account for the phenomenon. As above, God can always be posited as some ultimate telos, removed from the local forces at work, but this is overlay, superfluous for understanding the dynamics they are witnessing.

You add in some theology to your science there, which is your right. But that is what is happening.

Yes, that’s precisely why those limitations exist, to exclude categories that corrupt scientific epistemology – natural explanations for natural phenomena, remember. Science is only as good and useful as it is pristine in excluding supernatural explanations.
OK, but the point still stands. To the extent you think that your revised idea of “truth of life” is not serviceable by natural explanations, you are right back in the same boat. You have to downgrade that (epistemically speaking) to philosophy or theology, at that point. You only get the fruits of natural epistemology (empirical testing, falisification, prediction tracking, etc.) if you accept natural explanations. If you want to go beyond that, you are out of luck, and have nothing to help you in validating your “truth”, epistemically.

Yeah, I think that logic is easily refuted. What is not easily dismissed is the presence and verifiabiltiy of natural, physical resources and processes, and the conspicuous lack of evidence and verifiability of for any agent or mind that can account for “telic” concepts of biological development. Since works with what it has available, evidentially, and it does not permit just making up explanations that do not obtain or even comport with the available evidence. That makes “design” a non-starter in terms of scientific epistemology, given the evidence we have available.

A thought has energy. Any who doubt this are invited to try thinking without using energy to do it.
Scientists – all of them, so far as I am aware – do explore both kinds of factors. I think that is not controversial or uncommon at all. What is controversial is "what qualifies as ‘explanatory capital’ on the immaterial/spiritual/theological side?

That’s at least a very difficult question, and I hold it to be an intractable one.

-TS

Here is my bedtime question. Can all or any of the above apply to the human species? The reason I ask is that I see the human species as different in kind. This position influences how I think about the above. Yes, it does take energy to think.

But when one considers that it is philosophy which answers questions regarding the purpose of life, etc., one should not automatically ignore science which answers questions about the body. Could it be that philosophy and science answers different questions about the human species? If the answer is yes, then there should not be a conflict between philosophy and science because the human being has one nature. If the answer is no, where does one look for answers that do not belong in science?

 

[grannymh]

To grannymh,

I think you should realize that there is a struggle for power going on right now and science has been enlisted to the cause. Man Created God appears on the sides of buses to add weight to atheist claims. The same with: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. Both are connected to evolution. One is connected to the premise, often mentioned here, that man’s neurological development occurred in a way that increased function to the point that either man could detect god/gods/experience ‘spirituality’ or invented god/gods/spirituality as a coping mechanism on his way to becoming “smarter,” i.e. “modern.”

It needs to be pointed out that on the one hand: Science must exclude the supernatural by design. I agree that supernatural causes should not be the goal, but supernatural events do occur. These, of course, are brushed aside as things science has not explained “yet.” Since those who believe firmly in science have allowed for no other option. However, the Church recognizes miracles and does call in relevant experts through the Congregation for Saints’ Causes. This part of reality must be ignored/minimized since it could be corrosive to non-theists.

Intelligent Design, based on observation of complex systems within cells, interlocking and interdependent, is brushed off as relabeled Creationism, but nothing could be further from the truth. One argument against it is that a ‘God did it’ explanation would render further research pointless. Not true. All of the current biological research deals with currently living things and is primarily focused on (a) killing or disabling certain organisms, (b) finding ways to repair or replace organs in certain organisms, and (c) manipulating certain organisms to produce a product.

A minor deity in the evolution pantheon, Stephen Jay Gould, stated that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently. This violates the intentional order of Creation as defined by divine revelation and renders ‘theistic evolution’ just a play on words, making it not functionally different from current, non-God evolution.

The conflict is here: If we say that God intervened anywhere in evolution, at all, it renders the idea of random mutations and natural selection doing whatever superfluous. But, on the other hand, if God does play a direct causal role (as the Church presents in the document Communion and Stewardship) then Christianity is indeed right not just in a spiritual/symbolic sense but in a very real sense. If you believe the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, then this is further confirmation. This idea is, of course, defused by the “well there are other gods and other religions, so how do we know it is your god?”

Richard Dawkins underlines this when he says (as I heard on TV): “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” As Pope Benedict has said that while science has given us knowledge and insights, there are other areas of reason we still need.

On a Catholic Forum, to dwell only on the strictly scientific aspects ignores these other things which are critical pieces of actual knowledge that we are to spread to others. Who did Jesus die for? Why did He have to die? These are valid questions that cannot be answered by science but can be answered by the Church.

One last thing. If a complex, obviously manufactured object were found on Mars - the conclusion would be that it was clearly designed by an Intelligence. Of course, no scientist would say it is God, they will comfort themselves by saying ‘aliens’ left it, even though no other traces of their existence could be found. But that still leaves the foot of the Intelligence too close to the science lab door. The argument against intelligent design is purely ideological because even if some aspects of life could be ascribed to an unnamed Intelligence, the fear is it would get people to think of that word that begins with a G.

Peace,
Ed

Your informative post is appreciated. It is always good to be reminded.

Nevertheless, I should clarify two points. 1. I am well aware of the struggle for power. Actually, this struggle goes very deep into the heart of Catholicism. 2. In my humble opinion, a Catholic Forum is an excellent place to talk about scientific aspects regarding nature because eventually these can be evaluated in the light of Catholic teachings. Concentrating on science does not automatically mean that one is ignoring the other things which are critical pieces of actual knowledge that we are to spread to others. For example, Who did Jesus die for? etc. We need to recall that we are all parts of the Mystical Body of Christ with different talents or missions. Saint Paul’s description says it all.

 

[Touchstone]

Here is my bedtime question. Can all or any of the above apply to the human species? The reason I ask is that I see the human species as different in kind. This position influences how I think about the above. Yes, it does take energy to think.

I think it does, so I think it can. Consider for a moment that you are a completely natural, all natural being, without any immaterial dimension. You know you are a physical being in part, now just consider that that is the full measure of it. Without even worrying about the details of your objection, I ask you to describe, or to consider without relating if you prefer, what the nature of that objection is.

Is it an intuitive objection?
It is an emotional objection?
Is it a practical objection?

There may be others types of objections, but if it’s either or both of the first two, I suggest that’s a signal to think about that proposition more.

But when one considers that it is philosophy which answers questions regarding the purpose of life, etc., one should not automatically ignore science which answers questions about the body. Could it be that philosophy and science answers different questions about the human species?

Sure, could be. How would we know that is the way it works out? Would we expect philosophy to produce answers that check out as answers rather than dangling questions and thoughtful expressions?

If the answer is yes, then there should not be a conflict between philosophy and science because the human being has one nature. If the answer is no, where does one look for answers that do not belong in science?

I think reason and philosophy outside of science continue to function as they do now. The understanding that man is a completely natural being invalidates a whole swath of philosophical and theological frameworks, that’s all. Philosophy would take its cues from a decidedly more materialistic set of background data. Morality would not be any more scientific than it now, itself, but it would draw on a set of understandings from science that are quite different than they are now.

The same thing would obtain in the reverse. If God came down and showed himself to everyone’s reasonable satisfaction, science would still be science, but it would incorporate a whole lot more God and theology and supernatural explanations than it does now.

-TS

 

[itinerant1]

Intelligent Design, based on observation of complex systems within cells, interlocking and interdependent, is brushed off as relabeled Creationism, but nothing could be further from the truth.

If ID is not creationist, then how do IC systems come into existence?

A minor deity in the evolution pantheon, Stephen Jay Gould, stated that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently.

S.J. Gould was, rather, the reigning Pontiff of materialist evolution.

 

[grannymh]

Consider for a moment that you are a completely natural, all natural being, without any immaterial dimension. -TS

Challenge accepted.

Since I am an experiential learner, I will consider myself a living organism without any immaterial dimension as you suggested. Specifically I am a naked chimp which is an all material natural being.

As a chilly chimp, I am a sentient being. Where am I living?

 

[buffalo]

If ID is not creationist, then how do IC systems come into existence?

S.J. Gould was, rather, the reigning Pontiff of materialist evolution.

The implications of a theory do not mean it is false or not worthy of pursuit. Judge it on its own merits.

 

[Touchstone]

Challenge accepted.

Since I am an experiential learner, I will consider myself a living organism without any immaterial dimension as you suggested. Specifically I am a naked chimp which is an all material natural being.

As a chilly chimp, I am a sentient being. Where am I living?

I suppose where you’d been living all along?

OK, so you obviously have enough sentience and cognitive faculties to compose and submit a post to an Internet forum, in your new “naturalness”. What part of that understanding broke down as you posted, or are you able to compose a message as your natural self?

-TS

 

[grannymh]

I suppose where you’d been living all along?

OK, so you obviously have enough sentience and cognitive faculties to compose and submit a post to an Internet forum, in your new “naturalness”. What part of that understanding broke down as you posted, or are you able to compose a message as your natural self?

-TS

OK, I will try to be a serious granny. However, you should know that I often tell my grandkids that when I grow up I want to be Mary Poppins.

Seriously – the truth is that on some other threads, I have posted examples of the differences between the superior human species and brute animals. This was usually done from the human perspective. The latest example was that the human species can choose to counteract the natural survival extinct by deliberately setting backfires to stop raging forest fires as on the west coast.

Many years ago, I did a form of “experience” writing as part of an on-going fund raising campaign so the idea of “experiencing” what a material living organism, that is a chilly chimp, was really like delightfully tickled my imagination. It also hit me hard what it would be really like if humans were just another evolving vertebrate in the brute animal kingdom.

Perhaps the real question is – What was added to my new natural nature which enabled me to compose and submit a post to an Internet forum?

I know you referred to the chilly chimp as having enough sentience and cognitive faculties to do that. And I did grant some cognitive ability to chimps which currently do not set backfires in my example. But – What if “Evolution takes place in living organisms; therefore, all parts of living organisms have evolved.” could not be refuted?

 

[Touchstone]

Many years ago, I did a form of “experience” writing as part of an on-going fund raising campaign so the idea of “experiencing” what a material living organism, that is a chilly chimp, was really like delightfully tickled my imagination. It also hit me hard what it would be really like if humans were just another evolving vertebrate in the brute animal kingdom.

Perhaps the real question is – What was added to my new natural nature which enabled me to compose and submit a post to an Internet forum?

OK, I get you now. I overlooked this, as I thought this part quite obvious: you have a cerebral cortex that simply dwarfs the brains of other animals. The endocranial volume of a typical human is about 1200cm^3, where the volume for a chimpanzee is about 400cm^3.

So what was added to your natural nature was brain power, lots and lots of mental horsepower.

I know you referred to the chilly chimp as having enough sentience and cognitive faculties to do that. And I did grant some cognitive ability to chimps which currently do not set backfires in my example.

Sorry, I wasn’t supposing you really thought yourself a chimp, but a human who was just as natural as a chimp. You still have a (relatively) ginormous brain compared to that chimp, and the cumulative fruits of that which the chimp does not (language, culture, collective knowledge bases, etc.).

But – What if “Evolution takes place in living organisms; therefore, all parts of living organisms have evolved.” could not be refuted?

Well, since we are back to that idea, I’ll point out what I let pass before: evolution doesn’t take place in living organisms. Evolution is a population phenomenon. It happens to populations, not individuals.

That distinction notwithstanding, the conclusion doesn’t follow. I think that is all that is needed to refute the argument completely. But if you are looking to somehow show that some part of man did not or could not have evolved by means of successive, step-wise, gradual natural processes, then one would have to undertake some argument to show that. Michael Behe thinks he can do something like that with the arguments advanced in Darwin’s Black Box and the Edge of Evolution, for example.

I think you’d have to do much better than Behe has to make headway on that, but that would be the path to follow, failing some fortuitous appearance of the Designer itself to demonstrate once and for all how humans really were designed in some unique way apart from what nature could/would produce.

-TS

 

[itinerant1]

The implications of a theory do not mean it is false or not worthy of pursuit. Judge it on its own merits.

How can I know or judge the merits of ID theory if I don’t know how IC systems arise? Is this the secret part of the theory? Is it known only to insiders? Is it privileged information? Is it gnostic? Is it scientifically verifiable, at least in principle? What is it?

I guess it’s too much to ask how IC systems originate?

 

[edwest2]

How can I know or judge the merits of ID theory if I don’t know how IC systems arise? Is this the secret part of the theory? Is it known only to insiders? Is it privileged information? Is it gnostic? Is it scientifically verifiable, at least in principle? What is it?

I guess it’s too much to ask how IC systems originate?

Then let’s replace a few words to illustrate a fundamental problem with another theory. "How can I know or judge the merits of evolutionary theory If I don’t know how living systems arise? Is this the secret part of the theory? Is it known only to insiders? Is it privileged information? Is it gnostic? Is it scientifically verifiable, at least in principle? What is it?

“I guess it’s too much to ask how living systems originate?”

Even Richard Dawkins concedes that living things look designed. I’m certain if I showed you an early 20th Century pocket watch and I told you it was created naturally, you’d look at me in astonishment. A paradigm shift would occur if complex nanotechnology in the cell would be recognized as complex nanotechnology. As far as IC systems, the simple proposal is this: all of the parts must be present in the correct order/placement, and in the correct size relationship for the system to function as it does in fact function.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

Then let’s replace a few words to illustrate a fundamental problem with another theory. "How can I know or judge the merits of evolutionary theory If I don’t know how living systems arise? Is this the secret part of the theory? Is it known only to insiders? Is it privileged information? Is it gnostic? Is it scientifically verifiable, at least in principle? What is it?

“I guess it’s too much to ask how living systems originate?”

Even Richard Dawkins concedes that living things look designed. I’m certain if I showed you an early 20th Century pocket watch and I told you it was created naturally, you’d look at me in astonishment. A paradigm shift would occur if complex nanotechnology in the cell would be recognized as complex nanotechnology. As far as IC systems, the simple proposal is this: all of the parts must be present in the correct order/placement, and in the correct size relationship for the system to function as it does in fact function.

Peace,
Ed

Interesting, but it evades my question:

If ID is not creationist, as you asserted, then how do ID systems come into existence?

 

[itinerant1]

Interesting, but it evades my question:

If ID is not creationist, as you asserted, then how do ID systems come into existence?

Correction:

If ID is not creationist, as you asserted, then how do IC systems come into existence?

 

[itinerant1]

Intelligent Design, based on observation of complex systems within cells, interlocking and interdependent, is brushed off as relabeled Creationism, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Ed

Ed, are you MIA?

I must know if ID is not creationist, as you claim, how do IC systems come into existence?

You must know the answer since you said it does not involve creationism.

Ed, Ed, where are you?

 

[redneck22]

Sexual selection by peahens has driven the evolution of a peacock’s tail. That is not natural selection because the peacock’s tail is a disadvantage in ordinary living. It is the sexual selection which has overcome natural selection in this case to drive the male tail to extraordinary size.

Charlie D gets it wrong again

Female Peacocks Not Impressed by Male Feathers

"*During spring periods from 1995 to 2001, the scientists observed male and female mating success, from both the male and female perspectives, with a focus on what are known as “male shivering displays.”

During such a display, a male shows and shakes its train directly toward a visiting female at close range. The shaking produces a distinct rustling noise.

Females seem to actively solicit shivering displays by running around males they seem to prefer.

The scientists took these behavioral indicators of mating success and related them to several aspects of peacock train fanciness, including train length and number of eyespots. The researchers also documented the number and duration of shivering displays.

Across the board, the researchers were unable to link the elaborateness of a peacock’s train with his mating success. In fact, Takahashi and her team found little train variance among males in the population they studied. They also couldn’t detect any link between a particular male’s fitness and his train.

Barrett, however, mentioned that this theory, along with the rest of the new findings, is bound to be controversial, since other researchers have presented data suggesting that a peacock’s train does influence whether or not a female will choose to mate with him.

“Tests between the two alternate hypotheses now on offer leave students of sexual selection with plenty of work to do,” Barrett concluded."*

Well, looks like Charlie has has been defrocked like a plucked turkey.

 

[itinerant1]

Charlie D gets it wrong again

Female Peacocks Not Impressed by Male Feathers

"*During spring periods from 1995 to 2001, the scientists observed male and female mating success, from both the male and female perspectives, with a focus on what are known as “male shivering displays.”

During such a display, a male shows and shakes its train directly toward a visiting female at close range. The shaking produces a distinct rustling noise.

Females seem to actively solicit shivering displays by running around males they seem to prefer.

The scientists took these behavioral indicators of mating success and related them to several aspects of peacock train fanciness, including train length and number of eyespots. The researchers also documented the number and duration of shivering displays.

Across the board, the researchers were unable to link the elaborateness of a peacock’s train with his mating success. In fact, Takahashi and her team found little train variance among males in the population they studied. They also couldn’t detect any link between a particular male’s fitness and his train.

Barrett, however, mentioned that this theory, along with the rest of the new findings, is bound to be controversial, since other researchers have presented data suggesting that a peacock’s train does influence whether or not a female will choose to mate with him*.

“Tests between the two alternate hypotheses now on offer leave students of sexual selection with plenty of work to do,” Barrett concluded."

Well, looks like Charlie has has been defrocked like a plucked turkey.

Yawn! No news here. If you saw one of my earlier posts you would know that most modern evolutionists don’t seem to put much importance on the idea of sexual selection because its occurrence or frequency is an unknown. Hardly any evolutionist today holds to exactly the same form or number of theories as Darwin did. That’s just science and progress.

So, what is your point, may I ask?

 

[itinerant1]

Intelligent Design, based on observation of complex systems within cells, interlocking and interdependent, is brushed off as relabeled Creationism, but nothing could be further from the truth. Ed

Unfortunately, Intelligent Design theory is an updated version of Fundamentalist Creationism. I forget what version upgrade number it is; V. 6.2?