Why Would Natural Selection Do That?

Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population. Individuals with certain variants of the trait survive and reproduce more than individuals with other variants.

Some flowers have non-functional stamens (male parts) in female flowers. Some flowers have non-functional pistils (female parts) in male flowers.

Most flowers have both sexes of reproductive organs (stamens and pistils).

These others however have only one or the other. Having both where only one set works is a waste of materials.

© Oolon Colluphid 2003, 2009

Why would evolution produce something so wasteful or of essentially no use

Why would those who have such a poor design not die off and

Why wouldn't those with a better design be selected instead?

Isn't that the whole point of natural selection?

=====

You may wish to ask yourself, "Why are fraudulent and misleading "evidences" for evolution present in our children's textbooks?"  

For example, “Why are the Miller / Urey experiments purporting to produce amino acids from the components of early earth’s atmosphere still in school science books and why are well known scientists still referring to these failed experiments as proof for naturalistic evolution? You know, that inanimate and inorganic chemicals and gases evolve?"

Why Along with the Miller / Urey fiasco, do we still find in our children's textbooks:
. Darwin’s Tree of Life - purporting to show common ancestry is now completely unsupported by the fossil record, but still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Darwin's finches are used as evidence for evolution. Even though we know that the beaks of these finches change naturally (adaptations) with the amount of rainfall. Yet this is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;.

. Haeckel’s Embryos - purporting a common ancestor - is known (since 1860) to be fraudulent and misleading, but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Gill slits / pouches in human embryos - purported as evidence for a common ancestor - now known to be simple skin folds but presented in a knowingly misleading fashion (even fish don’t have gills at that stage of development) while empirically false, are still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for biological evolution;
. Archaeopteryx as a the half-bird / half-reptile - NOT - missing link with thousands of transitional forms soon to be discovered - NOT - but is still present in our children’s textbooks as proof for common ancestry and biological evolution.
. Java and Piltdown Man, both now known to be glaring examples of shoddy and speculative science - at best - yet still present in our textbooks as examples of common ancestry.

If there is so much new evidence for macro evolution why is fraudulent evidence, lies really, still being used?There is only one reason that atheist driven science is still leaning on fraud and deception to build up evolution, and that is because there is nothing more substantial to use. When confronted with the LACK of evidence, these “scientists” say, “Well, we know the theory is true even if the evidence doesn’t support it. In one hundred years you can’t expect us to throw out what’s false and include all this great new compelling evidence.”

Right, let’s give students our worst evidence, false evidence, deception and outright lies. We have much better evidence but we’re not going to let anyone know what it is.

“Students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution" through biology textbooks (Wells 2000: xii).

“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures; our Darwinian claim to have done it all ourselves is as ridiculous and as charming as a baby’s brave claim to be standing on its own feet while holding both of his mother’s hands. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”
John A. O’Keef

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Darwin

In reality that is true. A dozen irreducibly complex systems operate within our bodies, systems that stand no chance of having been created by naturalistic evolution. But those who are philosophically committed to a material universe arising from nothing by nothing, those who are philosophically committed to life emerging unaided from non life, Darwin’s true statement is simply ignored as they press on with their absurd, incoherent faith system.

Who Do You Think You Are?

The answer to that depends entirely upon whether you believe we are a soul inhabiting a body or simply, as Francis Crick once described, “No more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

. If what he says is true, then consciousness doesn’t really exist. The “I” that you contemplate throughout the day does not exist.

. If what he says is true, then there really isn’t anything resembling free will. The choices that you think you make are simply reactions to stimuli.

. If what he says is true, it’s an illusion to think that you are aware or are able to pay attention to what’s going on inside of you.

The renowned “Father of modern neurosurgery,” Wilder Penfield, has performed thousands of operations on patients with epilepsy. With electrical stimulus he could cause patients to move their arms or legs, turn their heads or eyes, talk or swallow. Patients would respond to these actions by the doctor with comments like, “I didn’t do that. You did that.” The patient thinks of himself as having an existence separate from his body. An existence that involves the ability to choose and decide.

To examine this phenomenon further, Penfield would electrically stimulate the proper motor cortex of conscious patients to make one of their hands move. He would then tell them to decide to use the other hand to keep the stimulated hand from moving when the current was applied. The patient would seize this hand with the other hand and hold it still. Thus, one hand under the control of the electrical current and the other hand under the control of the patient’s “mind / soul / essence / conscious self” fought against each other. Penfield, himself a staunch materialist was forced to say that we have not only a physical brain but also a nonphysical reality that is able to interact with the material brain. To expect the highest brain mechanism to carry out what the mind / soul / essence / conscious self commands is absurd for a materialist.

“What a thrill it is, then,” Penfield felt compelled to say, “to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the “human spirit.”

I use the same premise on a frequent basis in counselling as I explain to those requiring significant changes in their lives that, “OUR (meaning our soul / mind / essence / conscious self) brain believes what WE (meaning our soul / mind / essence / conscious self) tell it. If WE want the chemical balance in OUR brains to change then WE must change what WE tell our brains.” There is no location in our physical brain where a chemical exchange, or the firing of neurons will cause a client to believe or to decide one way or the other. That is because believing / deciding / choosing etc. originates in the conscious self (the part that atheists say doesn’t exist), not the physical material organ we call the brain.

Reviewing copious amounts of confirming evidence for a dualistic mind / soul / body, anthropologist Marilyn Schlitz says, “I would take the position of a radical empiricist, in that I am driven by data, not theory. And the data I see tells me that there are ways in which people’s experience refutes the materialist position that the mind is the brain and nothing more. There are solid, concrete data that suggest that our consciousness, our mind, may surpass the boundaries of the brain.”

In a moment of self-honesty an atheist wrote - “Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this. The point is that there is no scientific answer.”
Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse