Darwin's argument is really amusing. If you haven't read it, I suggest it may be worth investing a few minutes.
On the other hand, I willingly admit that 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.
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 this has been effected through sexual selection, that is, by the more beautiful males having been continually preferred by the females, and not for the delight of man.
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.
