The owner of this website:
http://www.tetraheed.net/ has posted a set of three essays on evolution and religion. Part 1 is quite well written. I have some problems with part 2. Part 2 is found here:
http://www.tetraheed.net/rel-dar-2.htmHere is an excerpt:
Why did all mobile animals become auxotrophic (a term that is explained below), when auxotrophy was clearly against the best interest of any species?
.
It baffles me that evolutionary scientists have never faced up squarely to that question. Unless people such as Dawkins and Provine can answer these questions, they should reconsider some of their published claims and public statements, claiming to know the answers confidently and even absolutely.
My undocumented position is that evolutionary scientists have indeed faced up to this and have presented clear and logical explanations. These explanations may not have directly answered the question, but the question is answered and the premise of the statement is wrong.
I encapsulate and simplify the explanation by saying that when the ability to manufacture a vitamin or amino acid was lost, that substance was being ingested by other means such as eating plants and other animals containing that substance. The lost was not intentional or guided; it was a random occurrence that simply had no effect. The animal (species) carrying this genetic code that lacked his ability suffered no disadvantage in the competition called life. Eventually the auxotrophic genome became a part of the species.
So the explanation is clear and simple. At least in my mind. What do you say?
™ Version 4.2