I posted this on another forum, and I thought I'd share it here as well.
Sexual Selection - More problems than evolutionism can handle.
Problem number one: it is observed. Because sexual selection is observed, it needs to be accounted for. Darwin understood that he needed to account for what is observed, so he explained what sexual selection is, and gave some examples. What he did not explain was its origin. Neither did he manage to solve any of the other problems.
Since Darwin observed that sexual selection is a means by which traits change within a population why must he also determine how sexual selection got started?
Problem number two: Special pleading is required to account for the origin of sexual selection, and its continuance. Take Darwin's word for how it operates. Go ahead. A particular trait will be favoured by one sex or the other. Individuals who are lacking in that respect will reproduce less than those who are favoured. Okay, got that?
Now when we attempt to account for the origin, things are reversed. A choosy individual appears in a population. Being choosy, this individual will reproduce less often than every other competitor in the population!
Does a choosy individual reproduce less often than every other competitor? Could you provide an example of this? If that were true then sexual selection would not occur at all. Are you saying that sexual selection doesn't happen in nature?
This violates an important principle of logic. Even if one decides as a matter of personal choice to accept the special pleading, one should be honest enough to admit it is contrary to proper science.
In what way is the idea of sexual selection contrary to science...details would be appreciated.
Problem number three: Sexual selection runs contrary to 'natural selection'. Darwin acknoledged this, but didn't really care.
A citation would be good here so we could look at it ourselves. Why can't the two types of selection be contrary? How does their being contrary prevent evolution from happening?
Most of his followers are content to see 'selection' of any kind claimed, whether or not it would be beneficial. I suggest that if the principle of 'natural selection' is valid, it is again special pleading to make exceptions and claim that two contrary methods of 'selection' can operate simultaneously without inefficient results.
I evolution supposed to be efficient?
And the world is supposed to be a hostile place, full of struggle and strife, where every small factor is at play, spelling the difference between life and death. You have 'natural' selection killing off some individuals, and you have mates being chosen for traits other than fitness, decreasing the overall fitness of the population.
You have examples of sexual selection decreasing the fitness of a population?
Problem number four: We have tons of experimental evidence. Domestic animals and plants have been selected for single traits for centuries. Fitness is always decreased, without exception.
Domestic animals and plants are not bred for "sturdiness" or natural fitness. They are bred for a trait the we want. Horses...faster. Corn...sweeter,bigger. Dogs....welllll...take your pick.
Wild varieties of every last thing are sturdier, healthier, more intelligent, etc. Selecting for one or two traits decreases fitness, and that's all sexual selection amounts to.
Yet those species that have been practicing sexual selection in the wild are "sturdier, healthier, more intelligent, etc". Seems to run counter to your argument.
Scientifically, we know these species must be slowly devolving. There is no experimental basis for doubt - only certainty.
Was there some sort of experiment that came to this conclusion based on ....comparative analysis or something? Could you cite the research that supports your statement about devolving organisms?
(And just to show how mixed up evolutionism is, note how often you see artificial selection made out to be equivalent to 'natural selection', and how rarely you see it mentioned in connection with sexual selection. Which one is it practically synonymous with?)
Really? Please provide a quote from an evolutionist (preferably a professional scientist) that states that artificial selection is the same as natural selection.
The main evolutionist argument one encounters is that such-and-such trait is a sign of health, so sexual selection amounts to choosing a fit mate.
You have examples where it is not?
That doesn't match experimental results. Would not a large, juicy cob of corn be a "sign of health",...
I haven't seen too many stalks of corn agonizing over which other stalk to breed with.
...or any of the other countless traits humans have bred for over the centuries? Of course!
You'll have to show where any of them were selected based on their fitness.
But selecting for such traits always leads to inferiority. I'll admit big floppy ears on dogs might not be the best indicator of health, but these are an exception. We have plenty of experimental evidence if we set them aside, and the conclusion cannot be avoided by any honest individual who considers the matter with care.
Now that your 4 assertions are done you can present your evidence and we shall see what honest individuals will conclude. It is difficult to consider any matter with care if the only evidence concerning that matter is as lacking as what you presented here.
