Evolution actually occurred.

Just wanted to say sorry for
not being here..
Family things,
funeral no computer..
I think you shold start
this debate again it would
be a very interesting one!
Sorry again

Kira

Harlan, my objection was not solely based on simplicity grounds. I think your example overlooked pretty much the entirety of gradualism and made evolution look like X-Men.

Attraction to women clearly evolved as a method of attracting men to women. Simply having the expression of the trait in a woman doesn't negate the reasonings underlying the evolution of the trait in question. Nothing is perfect and it certainly doesn't hurt. Considering how 99% of our history went, women wouldn't have had much choice in the matter.

It was supposed to be simplistic, tatarize...thats what I intended.

Explain why female homosexuality would have evolved (females are the limiting sex).

Miserlou, I didn't say it wasn't legit. I said it was a little off. Evolution doesn't work like that. It's more a slight color change due to a protein than it is development of laser eyes. Yes, certainly having laser eyes would put you very much ahead of those organisms without laser eyes (depending on the control and energy requirements). Each slight variation being being useful to its possessor, gradually developing into a well formed organ.

Darth, my objection was more due to the lack of continuum around the steps than how they have advantages and disadvantages. For example, light skin has an advantage in increasing the production of Vitamin D and the disadvantage of burning over darker skin. So in areas with less sun light, a lighter skin tone is preferred. This slight change is primarily (other genes are involved and in different ways) triggered by the breakdown of a gene which allows for the transport of melanin to the skin. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, however, it's all a slow and gradual change.

I suppose my objection is a little harsh. My apologies for that Harlan. However, this kind of understanding is what leads to creationists (really they have deeper deficits more directly related) suggesting that therefore an eye can't possibly have evolved. You can't possibly just pop an eye into existence, and half an eye would be worthless, it's impossible to evolve an eye. The truth is the slow gradual changes from light sensing spots to pin hole eyes to lensed eyes to our eyes to better eyes... are all pretty well understood. But, "Poof! Laser eyes! Now I win!" -- is a little bit simplistic. I know that certainly somebody who didn't know how evolution worked might be rather impressed by Harlan's point, however, it doesn't provide any of the real crux, how does evolution build something. Rather it just makes a quick point of how does evolution select a grossly overpowered ability to wipe out the others.

Harlan's point was legit; it's a metaphor in a way. Just because people can't actually develope laser eyes randomly doesn't mean the principal isn't the same.

What harlan is saying is that evolution does not mean survival for one, death to another. Evolution heavily hinges upon survival of the fittest. Let think of it like communication. It al starts out primitively with talking. Talking can do so much, then there comes postage. Postage proves to be a better form of communication in some ways, but not in others. Both co exist and prosper. Then comes the telephone. That has some advantages over both previous forms, but shares some disadvantages as well. But it still lives, and so do postage and talking. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and in many ways one dominates the other. Now comes the internet. Seemingly the superior communication. It does everything that the previous three can, and starts to dominate the world. But all four still exist. How so? People like seeing each others faces, and still have to. The internet does not do that, though it has video chat. SImilar, but not the same. You can send things like postage, but not large packages. Thus postage lives on. The internet has so many thing similar with phones, but lacks the directness and the personal relation through the electronically transmitted voice. The internet does money things better, but still is not perfect. It is the same way through organisms. Chimpanzee's survive better than gorillas, gorillas more so than orangutans, and those more so than chimps. Humans appear to be the best, yet our predecessors live on, because they can and do survive. Something will emerge that beats humans, but it hasn't come out yet. It will though, within the next million years, and something will come that's better than that. One's way of life will eventually overshadow and take over anothers, thus causing extinction. That's just how life is. But until then, we must live life as it was meant to be lived.

Nah, it was pretty well wrong and gives misconceptions about evolution. Simple is fine, my version is simple, I didn't bother to explain the genetic code, protein synth, phenotype/genotype etc.

Yeah, but it was a simplified version.