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.

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! 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.

Problem number three: Sexual selection runs contrary to 'natural selection'. Darwin acknoledged this, but didn't really care. 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. 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.

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. 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. Scientifically, we know these species must be slowly devolving. There is no experimental basis for doubt - only certainty.

(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?)

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. That doesn't match experimental results. Would not a large, juicy cob of corn be a "sign of health", or any of the other countless traits humans have bred for over the centuries? Of course! 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.

-------------------

Come to find out, Darwin devoted most of Descent of Man to sexual selection. It was a chore, double checking his claims. Basically he sees sexual selection as an explanation for any and all observations that 'natural selection' cannot cover. I think it best to devote a separate post to each bogus element of his propaganda.

An online version of the book is available:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-11.html

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?

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?

In what way is the idea of sexual selection contrary to science...details would be appreciated.

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?

I evolution supposed to be efficient?


You have examples of sexual selection decreasing the fitness of a population?

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.

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.

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?

Really? Please provide a quote from an evolutionist (preferably a professional scientist) that states that artificial selection is the same as natural selection.

You have examples where it is not?

I haven't seen too many stalks of corn agonizing over which other stalk to breed with.

You'll have to show where any of them were selected based on their fitness.

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.

"A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets."

(Arthur C. Clarke)


"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."

—Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.


"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."

—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).



"Evolution is not worth many regrets."

As I said, Descent of Man is largely devoted to sexual selection.

Mankind proves too difficult to explain using 'natural selection'. And there are several traits which need to be written off as "sexual selection". So mankind turns out to be a case where "sexual selection" is claimed left & right in no consistent pattern beyond expedience.

Of course, when one is scientific, one searches for principles that apply universally and consistently.


See what I said about less offspring? So how could such a process evolve in the first place?


Catch that last part? Read that last sentence again if you need to. Natural selection would prevent the crazy, wonderful bright colours we see in this world, if that's so.

Welcome to Darwin's land of double-talk. Enjoy your stay. Come again soon!

The first sentence is the important one here. This is in conflict with his other statements about sexual selection and using it to explain away beauty (something he seems preoccupied with in this part of the book). One sex or the other should be more brightly coloured, if it is the result of sexual selection. Or the colours must provide an advantage for 'natural selection'. Neither is the case.

So why would Darwin so directly contradict himself? You did read the rest of the paragraph, right? He's arguing against Mr. Wallace, and forgets himself!

In chapter 14, discussing hummingbird feathers

This is a fine example of "sexual selection" being employed as a catch-all.

He continues:

Shifting the burden of proof. Why should Argyll be compelled to prove the tastes of an hummingbird? He is not the one making the claim.

Note that Darwin does not propose an experiment, like whitening feather tips & seeing which is preferred - you know, science. No no no. He employs his catch-all, and submits no evidence to support his claim. He implies his opposition is obliged to prove him wrong, when the burden is unquestionably his.

And keep in mind what he said about 'natural selection'. If the colours make the creature too conspicuous... But I'm kidding. That was just double-talk - he didn't really mean it.

Now this is noteworthy. Because when speaking of birds, he also mentioned "the law of battle".

He mentions many, many examples. Males birds, judging by his examples, have a strong tendancy to fight, even to the death over females.

And this is contrary to the proposition that females choose males based upon beauty. A female can't very well choose a dead male. He does weasel around this issue a little, noting that birds can recognize individuals and form preferences; but his arguments don't begin to suffice. Anyone interested is welcome to look, of course. I'll spare the rest.

So why then should the "law of battle" be so supreme among mammals (which can also recognize individuals and form bonds, mind you!), but take a back seat to beauty among birds? The answer is obvious: the birds are beautiful, and their beauty needs to be explained away. Even if the explanation flies in the face of reason.

In chapter 18, I found an issue that Darwin must not have considered important
I guess that's supposed to imply that he thinks his answers to other issues are satisfactory...

I consider this tantamount to confessing he must use "sexual selection" as a catch-all for the observations he cannot explain. I expect opinions to vary predictably on the issue.

You're right of course. Charles Darwin could not have been unsure of one part of evolution without being wrong about all of it.
No scientist has ever put forth a theory without being right about every aspect of it. Newton was completely right about the effects of gravity....or was that Einstein?

No matter. I think your point is made very well. We should use this criteria to determine the worth of all ideas. If a person is wrong or unsure about any one aspect of an idea then the entire idea should be thrown out. That way our knowledge can only advance if we know everything.

Maybe that is not what you mean by this criticism. Maybe you only want to use those standards when judging the worth of ideas that you don't like. Yeah, I think that is a more accurate assessment of your tactics.

Anyone who took the time to read through Darwin's discussion of sexual selection
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-11.html
should have noticed how concerned he was with explaining away beauty. The issue of beauty seems to have haunted him for several years.


That's from his earlier book.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/chapter-06.html

It's worth a careful read. Beauty, if it exists for its own sake, is absolutely fatal to Darwinism.

I wonder that this issue has received such little attention. I think we may profit by considering it.

Darwin, in the very next sentence, disavows the burden of proof.

One has to wonder what would prove something was formed solely for beauty! Is Darwin serious? Why does he bring up the issue in the first place, let alone ramble about it for so many paragraphs if his argument is merely "you can't prove it"?

I suspect he knew better. Beauty for its own sake is what we observe. He who would explain it away has the burden of proof, it seems to me.

Keep in mind the chronology, and you may understand how/why he became so incoherent and self-contradictory in his explanation of sexual selection.

Not that he was making sense to begin with, mind you! Darwin's argument here is really amusing. If you haven't read it, I suggest it may be worth investing a few minutes.

If you compare this with his first statement on the subject, it is a concession of defeat.

Of course he keeps right on going, as if he can weasel out of it. Intentional double-talk, inadvertent truth, or plain old evosickness? You decide.

Folks may be wondering why Darwin was so obsessed with sexual 'selection' that he devoted more chapters to it than he did to his antihistory about humans in the book entitled Descent of Man. I came across an interesting portion of Darwin's writing, which may prove insightful.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/chapter-06.html
Quote
UTILITARIAN DOCTRINE, HOW FAR TRUE: BEAUTY, HOW ACQUIRED.



It's worth a careful read. Beauty, if it exists for its own sake, is absolutely fatal to Darwinism. Not only Darwinism, but the very foundational philosophy on which it is based! This means that no amount of tinkering or revision could salvage his "theory".

I wonder that this issue has received such little attention. I think we may profit by considering it.

Darwin, in the very next sentence, disavows the burden of proof.


One has to wonder what would prove something was formed solely for beauty! Is Darwin serious? Why does he bring up the issue in the first place, let alone ramble about it for so many paragraphs if his argument is merely "you can't prove it"? Surely he must've realized that his own standard-of-proof differded from others.

I suspect he knew better. Beauty for its own sake is what we observe. He who would explain it away has the burden of proof, it seems to me. Before proceeding further, I suggest we pause so that everyone can determine for themselves where the burden of proof lies. Does it lie with those who acknowledge what they observe, or does it lie with those who wish to disregard/dismiss/ignore observations?

Darwin's argument is really amusing. If you haven't read it, I suggest it may be worth investing a few minutes.


If you compare this with his first statement on the subject, it is a concession of defeat.

Of course he keeps right on going, as if he can weasel out of it. His very next sentence begins with "but"



But it is too late for "buts".

There are a number of ways to diagram arguments, and examine them for logic. This is a bit unconventional, in order that I may avoid talking over anyone's head.

1.)"They believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed. Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory."

2.) "...a great number of male animals, as all our most gorgeous birds, some fishes, reptiles, and mammals, and a host of magnificently coloured butterflies, have been rendered beautiful for beauty's sake."

3.) 1 + 2 = Darwin's "theory" is false, and he knows it.

3.5)Not only Darwin's "theory", but also the philosophy upon which it was built is false, if one reads the whole thing in context.

4.) But... But he's going to peddle it anyhow.

Now Darwin never stated 3. He doesn't have to. Stating both 1 and 2 is equivalent to stating 3. Logically, if 1 and 2 are both true, 3 is also. Point #2 fulfills the condition set by Point #1. End of story. The only "Buts" available at this point are to be illogical or be dishonest.

People aren't always logical. Some might still try to salvage some faith in evolutionism. Darwin seeks to dump off beauty, as something he cannot explain, into his catch-all of "sexual selection". For the reasons I explained in the first posts of this thread, actual sexual selection cannot serve his purposes, and neither can his lowest-on-the-totem-pole goddess of sexual selection.

With the beauty issue on the table, it's not hard to understand how Darwin became so obsessed with trying to attribute it to "sexual selection".

Had he been successful in producing convincing propaganda, I expect we'd see evolutionists invoking this goddess muck more frequently than they do. Just look at how infrequently they bring it up. Look on this forum, others, debates, wherever. You won't see much.

They do still use it as a catch-all. For example, with the neck of the giraffe. You'll generally get the standard story, but if cornered on the Lamarckist nature of the standard story, they just attribute the neck to "sexual selection". No rhyme or reason - it's the catch-all. (And anyone who disagrees should expect to be challenged to [1] prove it wrong, and [2] supply a better evostory.)

Of course employing catch-alls is risky. The astute will observe that any time evolutionists invoke the lowly, reject-pile-tending goddess of "sexual selection", it's because they know they have no other answer.

Well, it looks like they're back to Lamarck for an evostory on giraffes.