---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :
Now, that is a question worthy of consideration. I find it hard to be a strict evolutionist. Don't give up. It's a World of Wonders out there, and the idea that it all got here as a spontaneous explosion of complexity from very humble biochemical offerings is probably the most amazing discovery we could have made. That there are still unanswered questions doesn't contradict anything or undermine the main principle. There will always be problems but they are all solvable. A problem is when there is a gap between data and explanation. Don't fill the gap with any old rubbish, it's like a detective story, the puzzle will be cracked the more you look at it. I tend to believe there has been some kind of intervention, somewhere along the way, or at various times. Here's a thought for you to play with, the idea of an intervention implies a god right? If you are using the presence of homosexuality as proof that god intervened, wouldn't he have done so in the opposite direction? He isn't a notorious gay lover is he... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : But a more serious objection to Darwin's natural selection hypothesis (beautifully simple and powerful as the idea is) than weird monsters from our prehistoric past is the prevalence of homosexuality (in humans if not our animal cousins). How can behaviour that is sterile possibly have evolved according to a theory that claims Nature favours acts that increase an organism's chances of sexual reproduction? Anyone want to attempt an answer? A gay man or woman is walking, talking proof that natural selection is either wrong or (more likely) radically incomplete as an explanation of how we got to be the way we are. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : Survival of the fittest? This is what the original looked like of that fossil just found in China (the Zhenyuanlong suni - a cousin of the better known Velociraptor). But it couldn't fly so those wings are surely (as the tired old cliché has it) about as much use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest. Let's see those neo-Darwinians explain this one! Hmm, maybe they were originally for keeping warm and became useful for catching insects or mating displays. Or maybe they just helped it run faster? Feathers are deformed scales so they must have had some sort of advantage early on or they wouldn't have got very far. Don't suppose you'd accept enhanced cuteness as an explanation? If I had a time machine this is the sort of problem I would work on... http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h View on tinyurl.com http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h Preview by Yahoo
