Good point. The evolutionists would have us believe that the plumage evolved *in parallel* with the inclination of the other peacocks to be attracted to such. They assert that at the same time the plumage evolved, the DNA mutated in neighboring birds of the opposite sex such that one found itself attracted to the the other.
So their explanation is two temporally and spatially adjacent independent systems self-assembling in lockstep.
This is a gross distortion of what evolutionists "believe." lol
No wonder you are pushing the whole, "there must have been a creator." Clearly you do not understand evolution one little bit.
There was no separate and "parallel," development, nor was there "two temporally and spatially adjacent independent systems self-assembling in lockstep,"
Put as simply as I can - Peahens developed a preference for peacocks with bright plumage. Probably, but not 100% because these were the dominant males and their plumage appeared more aggressive to potential predators, therefore they were more likely to survive to breeding age and their offspring were more successful. Nothing separate about the preference of peahens for peacocks with bright plumage and the development of brighter plumage on the males.
No. The brightness developed as a way to defeat predators. The ones with the bright plumage survived long enough to breed, and became more successful. The females therefore began to prefer the ones with the brighter plumage. Because they were more successful at breeding and their offspring were therefore more successful.
Sorry - not seeing how you are conducting yourself as an adult here. Merely asking for peer reviews on scientifically accepted information does not count. Please feel free to offer any contradictory evidence if you have any, but assuming that there must be a creator because you do not accept scientific evidence - well - I don't know what to call that. Irrational? Childish? Troll-like? Any of these would do.
Just HOW did you come to this conclusion? Who told you that this was the exact process that led to the current end result? Pure imagination (all of it). Science? Perhaps a peahen psychologist got it from the birds themselves.
I know. Thinking, dreaming, imagining, brainstorming and even learning. But don't disguise it as "science"! Call a spade a spade. It (the process you described) is pure conjecture, (imagination). I dreamt up god, you dreamt up peacock-peahen sexual desires. Quite simple, really.
You cannot imagine an enlightened sate so how will you imagine the Buddha correctly.It is not a mistake to identify yourself with your thoughts and the Buddha was no ordinary man. Every master will say the same thing. Your thoughts create or manifest.
So what you are saying is - even though the peacock's display evolved over millions of years to attract a mate, some god actually put it there so we could decide it is beautiful. As opposed to the ugly animals that are there to annoy us?
You don't want to know what I was tempted to write in response to this line! I couldn't think of a way to say it, without causing (possible)offence, so I sapre you. I enjoyed my own private joke, at your expense. Sorry Mark. I still have little respect.
There's a serious point here of course. Aka-dj (he'll forgive me for mentioning) is a nice cheerful guy, so his god, in his own image, is a nice cheerful god. The problem comes when violent and aggressive believers similarly observe that their god precisely shares their own preferred flavour of violence and aggression.
That dog is 10 times funnier than the Tom Cruise/SP video. I was in stitches. For a minute there I thought it was an "alien"."OMG, they really DO exist" ? ! Then I read the "truth", just a dawg. I almost became a believer in ET. Thanks Mark.
This is not about how you currently see the world but about how you would RATHER see the world.1. Through the eyes of a Christian, Islamist, Hindu, Buddha.... to you the world was created by a great being who put all of...