worship4ever said:
You then would agree that animals tranfer pollen much better than wind does, don't you. Natural selection obviously made a certain insect to take care of this problem. "Natural Selection" says, "the wind isnt doing a good job, so ill make a bee, insect, anything." I hope this sounds crazy, b.c it is. To me, this far more proves intelligent design. Natural selection isnt a person, a thing, or place, it doesnt tell anything to anyone.
Natural selection is a
process that yields design. Here is how Darwin described it:
"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]
Now, as you say, wind distributing pollen isn't efficient. So any plant that has the slightest attraction to insects so that they would distribute the pollen is going to make more plants than the others, right? So soon ALL the plants in that population will have the adaptation because all would have descended from the first plant that had that variation.
Then the next variation that IMPROVED the first would also outcompete the other plants for reproduction. And so the improvements ACCUMULATE one step at a time until you have the flowers we see today and the symbiosis with insects.
It may sound crazy to you, but it makes perfect sense to us. And has been documented hundreds of times that it actually happens.
Would you also agree that natual selection could, in time, run its course. By this i mean, everything needs to be at the exact place it needs to be, total effficiency by every species.
In that case you still have natural selection, but you have stabilizing selection. However, the environment is almost never totally stable. Any small change in the environment and we are off on directional selection again.
Yet, animals seem to made do with the tools given to them, ie beeks, longer legs, ect, this tends to look more like intelligent design.
This was tried before 1859. It failed because most of the designs in biological organisms simply aren't "intelligent".
The fact, k, a human is still be a human 300 million years from now, just like a bee will be a bee 300 million years ago.
You don't know the first and the second is false. There were no bees 300 million years ago.
An insect, a beneficial mutation in a somatic cell cannot be passed on to the next generation. And the insect's germ-line cells cannot test a mutation to see if it makes the wings work better for example.
The first is correct. However, in the second the insect made from that germ cell will indeed test the mutation to see if it makes the wings work better. It is just pure blind luck that the individual would get that mutation. It's not a matter of choice. It's either in its genes or not.
In other words, in higher plants and animals, any adaptive mutations in somatic cells can't be passed on, and while mutations in germline cells can be passed on, they cannot be adaptive.
Of course mutations in the germline can be adaptive. After all, they ARE going to be passed onto the next generation, and in THAT generation they WILL be in the somatic cells.
Who has been feeding you this line of manure? Worship4ever, think it trhough. A mutation in the germ cells. Random with respect to the needs of the individual because it can't effect the individual. But THEN used to make the next generation. And then EVERY cell, including the somatic cell, will have the mutation. NOW it is tested in the environment. IF it is successful, then the individual lucky enough to have the mutation will have more offspring. Since a mutation in the same gene is very unlikely, it's offspring will have that mutation by inheritance. Except, of course, for the offspring it won't be a "mutation" but their normal genone.
And soon, since it is successful, EVERY insect in the population will have that allele (mutation). So when the NEXT mutation comes along, it will ADD to the first, because the first will already be present.
You've got the basics of natural selection; you simply haven't thought it thru what those basics mean.
