Agree. Evolutionists have to deal with many stubborn facts. Such as the predominance of sexual reproduction. How would a successfully mutated individual advantage its offspring by mating with a non-mutated individual and diluting or eliminating its genetic advantage in that offspring?
I was thinking the other day about all of the distinct breeds of dogs that were -- yes -- designed by human intervention. What do you think would happen if all humans were suddenly removed and those dogs ran wild and interbred? It is most likely that you would soon end up with the conglomerated brown/gray mutt that you see hanging around in poor third world countries. In other words, the dogs that may have developed some survival "advantage" over the others would nonetheless copulate with the first hot bitch -- be it chihuahua or doberman -- that they found. That's what undirected randomness involves.
"Agree. Evolutionists have to deal with many stubborn facts. Such as the predominance of sexual reproduction. How would a successfully mutated individual advantage its offspring by mating with a non-mutated individual and diluting or eliminating its genetic advantage in that offspring?
I was thinking the other day about all of the distinct breeds of dogs that were -- yes -- designed by human intervention. What do you think would happen if all humans were suddenly removed and those dogs ran wild and interbred? It is most likely that you would soon end up with the conglomerated brown/gray mutt that you see hanging around in poor third world countries. In other words, the dogs that may have developed some survival "advantage" over the others would nonetheless copulate with the first hot bitch -- be it chihuahua or doberman -- that they found. That's what undirected randomness involves."
As for sexual reproduction, I suggest you use your God-given brain and think. Every October I watch the male elk gather 40-50 cows. Nest year, there will be 40-50 young elk with his genes. If he had to do it asexually, he might be able to crank out one young elk every two years, vs 80-100 sexually. Now do you see? Besides, incase you've forgotten or never had the opportunity -sex is fun 8^).
As for the rest of your post. Hmmm.. I suggest you go to you library and get a Biology Book and read it. It's clear that you learned all you know about Biology in Government Schools. Just because you have a computer, does not give you a license to spew blather.
My biggest problem with natural selection as a process to explain speciation is the lack of mutagens. If the genetic dice are being re-rolled every time another individual animal is conceived, thus giving rise to new and potentially useful structures that promote that individual's survival, then...well...where are the mutations, and what's driving the process?
If you roll a six-sided die and get a seven, it's for a reason. I'm open-minded as to what the reason might be, but I am convinced that there must be one. Random mutation alone doesn't seem to me regular enough to result in speciation, particularly when random mutation usually results in fatal defects in individuals.
You couldn't be more right. Which is why one of the key requirements for significant evolution in a species is population isolation. The larger the population pool, the smaller the potential for change.
I should elaborate that that's one of the reasons that large landmasses (Eurasia for instance) have relatively little biological diversity compared to isolated islands (Galapagos, New Guinea).