Replies

In your description of the 50% bias you are assuming that it will be a problem, because only half of the descendants would have the trait. However, if 50% of the offspring have the feature and 50% don't, then the 50% with it will reproduce more successfully than the other 50%.

Jeez, did you not at least have the courtesy of reading the whole post before responding? I dealt with that Darwinian hopeful math in it also:

Now you can say, but wait if the new trait is extremely useful, then the individual will reproduce much more than the rest and be able to overcome this problem and pass it on to the rest of the species. Problem with that is the theory of evolution itself, that all changes are slow and gradual. Such gradual changes cannot overcome the 50% bias against its being passed on to future generations.

However, you might say, but wait, what if evolution does not work that way, maybe it works the way Gould said and we have sudden changes? We have problems then too. Let's say that a lizard suddenly sprouted wings and learned to fly. Now this is an incredibly favorable change which would surely be spread through the species. Or would it? Would a female lizard want to mate with such a monstrosity? I doubt it. Even more important, due to the extreme genetic changes required in such a transformation, would it even be possible for the female to mate and produce winged lizards? Definitely not. So no, anyway you slice it, these new traits will not be passed on.

Yes, I did read your whole post.
And no you didn't deal with the math. You said that the 50% bias would stop evolution. And I explained that there was no 50% bias, because the whole point of evolution is that the 50% with the trait will be more successful, and gradually that feature will become widespread in the population.
you state: "Problem with that is the theory of evolution itself, that all changes are slow and gradual. Such gradual changes cannot overcome the 50% bias against its being passed on to future generations. "
You have no explanation in this. You just say that gradual changes cannot overcome... You don't say why. And in my reply I explained why they could. Just because the change is slow and gradual, there is no reason it is impossible.

I would also like to add that a belief in evolution does not equal atheism. If you want to believe that 5000 years ago God created Adam and Eve, that is fine and it is anyone's right to believe that. However, this belief does not rule out evolution. You can believe that this world has only been here for a few thousand years and that God Himself did all the work in creating man. None of that changes the fact that in a given population those who are most adapted and best suited to their environment will be more successful and have more offspring who resemble them. Adam and Eve may have been formed by God, but that does not keep finches with the best suited beaks from having more offspring than their competitors and the population from beginning to resemble them after several generations.