You have probably never heard of 'sexual selection'. That is quite understandable because it is a card hiding behind the sleeve. When the advocate of the devil is cornered he releases it and for amoment, you are like wow! I Thought I know everything about Darwinism. But if you were to think further, and more carefully, you will realize that it doesn't conduct electricity. Infact, 'sexual selection' is unconscious nod at the inadequacy of Darwinism in explaining the origin of life.
If you were carefully, you will notice that some things in life realy cannot be explained by Darwinism. But many people just say 'scientists know' and then go on to preach Darwinism as an answer-it-all. They are like Christians who just say 'it is written in the bible' but can never tell you where exactly nor have they even read! Latter you will realize that the scientists are actually like the fake magician who stealthly swap the hats and then pulls out the rabbit. The hat of 'natural selection ' is exchanged with the hat of 'sexual selection' and then the rabbit of 'evolution' is pulled out. Then they try to convince you that it is still Darwinism that is at the explanation. Here we show that it is nothing of the sort. Infact 'sexual selection' and 'natural selection' are two mutualy exclusive theories. So biologists are like physicists when it comes to the shell game of actually using many incomparable theories to explain natural phenomena and still say it is just one theory'.
'Sexual selection' infact attempts to reintroduce the mind through the window, after they threw it through the door. But the mind in question is now the one of the very creature it is supposedly evolving. So in effect, they are saying that the creatures infact create themselves using their own minds. After that, they tell you that evolution proceed in an entirely mindless way! We were created, so they say, via a series of accidents. So you realize that 'sexual selection' is actually never used. It is just left there as a stand by in case the going gets too tough. Darwinism will try to explain everything through natural selection and series of accidents. It is only when cornered do he release the 'sexual selection' joker card.
Of course Darwinism cannot explain many things. Lets take an example of shapes of leaves or flowers. The purpose of a leaf is just to trap light and to loose water. So any shape could just serve the purpose. However it is clear that some shapes are carefully selected. All leaves are shaped like 'love' symbol. If leaves shapes formed by accidental mutation, followed by natural selection, we would see all manner of shapes and leaves would be extremely irregular. It is at such juncture do a Darwinist say ' we realy should not explain everything via natural selection'. However, this is a fat lie because 'natural selection' defines Darwinism.
The beauty of peacock is often explained by 'sexual selection'. Indead neo-Darwinism cannot explain such! Any colouring of feathers should serve the purpose equally. Darwinism would tell us that had a bird been colored other than the way it is coloured, it would have died hence 'selected away'. Of course this is ridiculous! The purpose of feathers are just to cover the bird. Colouring doesn't matter. However, when you close exermine birds, you see a pattern if colouring. Two distant bird species are often colored in a closely similar pattern (also you can consider zebra and tiger or leopard and giraffe ). If colouring of birds etc were due to random mutation, followed by natural selection, then the colouring would be extremely irregular and it would be a miracle for two different species to be colored in a closely similar pattern, much like two different people randomly typing 100 digit numbers that are both similar! Another example is flowers. Why do almost all flowers have 5 petals? What 'evolutionary advantage' do 5 petals have? Why not 8 or13? So Darwinism is naked! They opt to cloth it with a 'sexual selection' garment. But this garment doesn't hide the ass that well.
The crucial point against 'sexual selection' is the explanation of where the trait that make the specific selection came from in the first place. Darwinism is just telling us 'ask the mate where the bird coloring came from'. He has just kicked the ball somewhere else. There is some inexplicable 'bird psychology' that selects a certain coloring. How did this psychilogy evolve in the first place? You realize that Darwinist have realy not explain anything. He has just wave an hand like a numbskull. We just take the battle ground from feathers to the mind. If peacocks evolved randomly, we would expect also their minds to evolve randomly. Thus we should have all manner of 'peacock psycologies' and hence all manner of choices of colors. Sexual selection demands that a specific psychology of the animal already exist without explaining how the psychology in turn was selected for.
Comments