Replies

This requires you to assume that mating individuals are attracted to characteristics that are "superior" from an evolutionary perspective, rather than God planned different people to be attracted to different choices as mates. You are assuming that every individual selects a mate based upon the exact same criteria.

No I don't.

Being attracted to a particular characteristic in a mate is ITSELF an evolutionarily-significant characteristic, which may tend to be passed to offspring. As long as a characteristic is not fatal, there will be a large diversity of characteristics passed along. Thus some of us are tall, some are short, some are dark haired and some are blond. Some are exceptionally fast. Others are very strong.

There is an advantage to a diversity of characteristics in a population. The environment may favor those who thrive in hot weather at the moment. Next year we may start an Ice Age, and cold-tolerant characteristics may be favored.

Also, keep in mind that whatever one's preference in mates, one can only select from among potential mates WHO HAVE SURVIVED to mating age.

Being attracted to a particular characteristic in a mate is ITSELF an evolutionarily-significant characteristic, which may tend to be passed to offspring.

Absolutely false. This is simply you ASSUMING THE CONCLUSION -- which is a fundamental error of evolutionists.

You assume that the selection of a mate has a purpose in terms in terms of the type of offspring that will result, and that use your assumption to try to justify your erroneous conclusion.

A human being can (usually does) choose a mate based on how that mate makes THEM feel, without the slightest interest in any factor (conciously or subconsiciously) affecting their offspring.

A woman may marry a man simply because he makes her laugh. You will then want to concoct some strained assumption that laughter has some evolutionary benefit. No, that is circular reasoning trying to assume the end point and then use that to get you from her to there. Marrying someone who makes you laugh may have NO value other than FEELING GOOD RIGHT NOW in the present, without any long-term benefit, intended or accidental. In fact, a man who makes a woman laugh may be impractical, lazy, distracted from getting work done, always focused on jokes instead of providing for his family, having fun while procrastinating, etc. In other words a BAD provider for the children.

Similarly, animals may "choose" a mate for no other reason than phsyical proximity. In Alaska there may be an owl in mating season. In Maine is an owl whose mating with the Alaska owl would produce an evolutionary superior result. However, the Alaska owl is going to "choose" the owl in the next tree over, NOT the preferable choice living in Maine. The "choice" may be nothing more than whatever animal recognizably of the same species is CLOSEST. In fact, I would dare say that this the case 90%+ of the time.

Ever try to get a cat to eat? One would think it would make sense for a cat to eat when there is food. It may always be the same food. But whether the cat eats or not may have nothing to do with SELECTING the food, but just whatever mood the cat is in. So "selecting" a mate may be nothing more than whichever cat of the opposite sex is nearby when the finicky cat gets in the right mood.

Especially for animals with large RANGING territories, the very idea of "selection" is a fallacy. Whatever specimen happens to be somewhere nearby when the mood strikes may be all the "selection" that is going on. Following the scents, there is more "selection" derived from whether the wind is blowing from the East or the wind is blowing from the West than any evolutionary characteristic.

And any evolutionary pressure that might still exist is wiped out, erased, and overwhelmed where there is a significant amount of randomness such as which way the wind blows.

So the assumption that any choice of mate serves an evolutionary function is simply ASSUMING evolution as true in order to try to prove evolution.