Cases Troublesome for Scientists

But how is this "a case in nature troublesome for scientists to reconcile with the theory of evolution by natural selection"? Apparently they have two ways to reconcile the case of sexual ornaments with the theory. This is positively an embarrassment of riches.It would make trouble for the theory if they had no explanation. Having two only leaves us with the interesting question of which is correct. (Note, by the way, that it is possible for one to be correct for one species and one for another, or indeed that it is possible for both to be correct for the same species.)

And, as a lay person, the Darwinian/Fisherian explanation of sexual selection seems to me to be overwhelmingly obvious.But I, like you, am a layman. So perhaps we should look at what scientists have to say about the subject.You don't want to go there. I have noted before that not only are creationists wrong about science, they are wrong about the history of science. Well of course at the cutting edge of science scientists are always "struggling for an explanation that fits in". That's their job.But to answer your question in the spirit that it was intended --- then NO. Biology and evolution fit together perfectly.

I am now uncertain as to what it is you are arguing for.You say that you "still believe" that Darwin grasped the idea of natural selction before he grasped the idea of sexual selection.What baffles me is why you say "I still believe" as though someone had been arguing with you on that point. No-one has, in fact, argued with you on this point.Indeed, I don't see how it matters. Perhaps some eminent 19th-century naturalist thought of sexual selection first and then thought of natural selection as a generalization; or perhaps he thought of natural selection first and then thought of sexual selection as a specific case.And I really don't see how it can be an issue which order Darwin thought of them, or why you bring it up, or why (to come back to my original point) why, why, why, are you writing ("I still believe") as though someone had maintained that Darwin thought of sexual selection first and natural selection later. No-one has in fact said that.

You're welcome. But scientists spend their whole professional lives "poking around". Let's hear, shall we, what conclusions they have drawn: And this is 150 years after Darwin and Wallace proposed the theory of evolution. If there really was any problem, then someone would have found it by now. You wouldn't have to rely on "average people" who were just "poking around". If there was a real problem with the theory, then scientists would be the first people to spot it. But in fact they are the first and foremost people who will stand up and say that the theory is correct.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.