Darwinism Cannot Explain The Peacock

I can agree that the argument is circular. But for the particular question being asked here, a circular argument works just fine. True, we cannot answer the question of what the actual mechanism is for propagating ornamental peacock tails is by using a circular argument.But we can answer the question of whether evolution can offer an explanation using the types of circular logic presented here. All that is necessary to answer rebut the statement "Darwinism cannot explain the Peacock is one feasible change/selection mechanism.

As you are doubtless aware, traits that do not affect comfortably reaching the age for siring/bearing of offspring are not subject to natural selection pressures. So no, those traits are not examples of better fitness.Even patients with cystic fibrosis survive into child bearing years.

I bring it up with you because it is relevant to your statements about evolutionary theory that are incorrect. No, that is not the crux of evolutionary theory in a nutshell, for at least the reasons I have stated. Even if Taq did make the statement you claim he would make, and I don't see that he did, we both know that such statements are wrong AND unnecessary to defend the theory of evolution.I also note that the question posed by the OP puts anyone proponent of evolution into the position of postulating that the ornamented peacock evolved from a non-ornamented one.

Those photos are of people with atypical hair growth. Try looking up anagen phase to see limits on hair growth typical for most humans.

What is the advantage of facial hair of any length?Not all traits are subject to natural selection. So why ask questions of this type?

I like the tactic. In fact, I'm applying the tactic to you right now. But your current execution of it fails. You are well aware that there is a consistent answer for your question; an answer that none of us need to invent ad hoc. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You have no answer. You are asking questions that make you look foolish.

Does the computer on your desk manage to work without using any technological advances derived from quantum mechanics? Could you actually hook a computer up to the internet that relies only on technology that Charles Babbage was familiar with?I think you have some point about generally tying all of science together as one field and treating them as one thing. But your chosen example is ridiculous.

They've got beards. Anyone can see them in the pictures. And we are not descended from chimps, anyways. Humans and chimps have a common ancestor. Except that hardly any of us can grow hair and beards down to the floor. You are describing a trait that is relatively rare then and asking us why it has not been removed from the gene pool.The selection pressure to remove long hair if there was such a thing, would have been ameliorated as soon as humans figured out how to cut or tie up their hair. My daughter has hair that is too long to play basketball with, so she binds it up before stepping onto the court.Further, who cares? If the given explanation is wrong, then it is just wrong. I agree with you that some of the stories given here are ridiculous and that you are right to question them. But nobody here is doing any real research. People are just postulating natural selection and mutation based processes that might give the final result.

Math is just a formal method of expressing Newton's law of gravity. Math is how we know whether Newton's law actually predicts what is actually observed. Math, when used in such a role, forms part of the scientific method.Math can play other roles, including formulating the actual hypothesis. Newton was indeed one of the greatest mathematicians of any era, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a scientist as well. Newton's theory of universal gravitation is sufficient to navigate space craft between planets in the solar system. Do you believe that General Relativity was used for the task of travelling to the moon, or are you just blowing smoke? As best as I can tell, your claim is that Ohm could not have been a scientist, because of his lack of formal education in physics, and that Ohm's contribution was simply finding an application for long division.

Your argument is inane. I don't care what Galileo or Newton were called during their lifetimes. If they used the scientific method to explore how things worked, I can use today's language to say that they were scientists.Alternatively one could note that you need not be recognized as a scientist to conduct scientific investigations.

We've seen that reasoning suggested before, and I find it particularly pathetic and somewhat offensive.Whatever Galileo's title was back in the 16-17th century, we discuss his work and life using the English language as it currently exists. If you have some reason to doubt that Galileo employed the scientific method to the scientific subject matter we now call physics, then let's hear about that.Otherwise, trying to discredit Galileo by saying that the word scientist was not used during his day is somewhat pointless. Let's leave that stuff to languish on Catholic Church websites. Or can we assume that you have found some errors in Galileo's mathematics. I'm curious as to what your objection to such an endeavor might be?One might also note that Isaac Newton practiced alchemy and that his investigations of light included probing behind his own eyes with needles.ABE:I thought this crap sounded familiar. It was your dumbass that spouted this mess earlier in this same thread. You also deny that Isaac Newton and Einstein were scientists. How about going for the Maxwell, Einstein, Newton trifecta?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.