- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Ah yes, my bad. Matt Ridley goes into sexual selection in his book The Red Queen on sex and evolution. A book I highly recommend and one...including the theory of sexual selection...completely support and depend on EVOLUTION. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
I was thinking of sexual selection on a narrower scale after Sanghas post.
No problem. I've read the Red Queen. Another good one is Sperm Wars by Robin Baker. I think there's a lot to those books, but they're missing quite a bit as well.
And again, it is only ONE mechanism that drives evolution, not one that 'dispproves it.' And as I mentioned as a quick reminder to Sangha, sexual reproduction is not the only way organisms pass on genes.
Did I try to use sexual selection as something that disproves evolution? I don't think I did. And you're right, it's not the only way organisms pass on genes, but it's the only way complex organisms do.
I know how organisms change over time. They do NOT mutate. Their is a mutation in a gene and that gets passed on *thru generations.* The organism does not mutate.
OK, but that's semantics. We're saying exactly the same thing. One particular organism won't mutate, that's obvious. The genes will mutate and the next generation will show the results of that mutation. Whether that mutation survives is dependent on how sexually attractive it is, or on how it affects the organism's survivability.
We've all read the textbooks. I still don't believe that man evolved from lower life forms, though. The mechanism for evolution is somewhat sound (though I still have issues with, for example, speciation), but what really bothers me the most about the theory is the sheer complexity of the human organism. The brain is just one organ. Our DNA is unbelievably intricate. It would take trillions and trillions of generations, in my humble opinion, for something like that to just evolve, and even then....