Question about the "evolution" of birds - just one example of how the theory is all guess and no science

Question

First of all, evolutionists need to stop stating anything from their work as fact, because none of it is proven.
But my specific example that maybe one of you Darwin-suckers can help me with is this:
Why do they say that parrots or peacocks have their colorful plumage and have noisy calls because they evolved that way to attract mates. Yet, sparrows, grackles and other dull, boring birds get laid all the time, even without blue or orange feathers.
And conversely, why is it said that sparrows, grackles and otherh dull brownish birds have such colors to avoid prey. Meanwhile, these parrots who need flashy colors to get laid are defeating the purpose of all this fornication by being easy to spot by predators.
Pure nonsense.

my question is simple, and unanswered so far.
If some birds "evolve" colorful feathers to attract mates, then why aren't all birds colorful? Obviously this is a lie, because brown birds find mates just as easily as red birds.

Answer 1

Hi.Beauty is in the eyes of the bird head. (And in the animal world mating is called mating.)

Answer 2

Obviously scientists, such as ornithologists, don't think the theory is "pure nonsense" or they wouldn't accept it with such overwhelming consensus. As long as you call it "pure nonsense" you are admitting that you just must not understand it very well.

Here's your answer:

Yes, sexual selection is particularly pronounced in birds. When females develop some idiosyncratic (and often arbitrary) preference for some display from males ... then generation after generation, this display can become more and more elaborate. The display can be in the form of bright feathers, or complex vocal calls, or courtship dances, or elaborate nests built by the males. This can range from subtle displays, to enormous extravagant displays.

But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that *ALL* species of birds should develop the *same displays* ... or even that ALL species of birds would have such elaborate displays AT ALL.

There are many reasons different displays will develop in different species. But key among them is that each species *BY DEFINITION OF 'SPECIES'* is genetically isolated.

This means three things:
(1) A sparrow or a grackle *CAN'T* have the same display as a peacock, because sparrows, grackles, and peacocks can't exchange genetic material. So there is absolutely no reason why a sparrow, a grackle, or a peacock would all have the same kind of plumage ... or even that plumage would be the key factor in sexual selection in all three species.

(2) A sparrow isn't competing against peacocks or parrots for mates. It is only competing against other sparrows. The reason a parrot today "needs" bright plumage to get laid is only because it is competing with other parrots. So it is silly to compare the plumage of a parrot with that of a sparrow or grackle. The plumages evolved under completely different pressures ... namely the pressure put on the males when competing for the females of their own species.

(3) Sparrows, peacocks, grackles, and parrots all have different environments, different niches, different predators, different females to court ... in short, different survival parameters. What's good for a peacock or parrot, can be useless, or even very, very bad for a sparrow or grackle. Peacocks and parrots live in environments where the threat of being visible isn't as dangerous as it is in the environment of sparrows and grackles ... so OF COURSE peacocks and parrots can get more colorful, while sparrows and grackles will not. (Why is that hard to understand?)

In other words, you are making the classic creationist mistake when understanding evolution that if trait X is good for one species, it should develop in *ALL* species. First, the appearance of trait X may occur as a series of mutations in the gene pool of one species, and there is no reason at all the same trait X will appear in any form in the gene pool of other species. And second, trait X may be great for survival and mating for the first species, but may be awful in the environment of the second species (which includes the idiosyncratic ways that birds choose mates).

Perhaps if you didn't *start* with the assumption that scientists are apparently all complete morons, you might really really ask yourself why the theory actually seems to *MAKE SENSE* to all these scientists.

Answer 3

Clearly peacocks and parrots survive in the wild, while still managing to reproduce (sexually), so their colours and feathers are not as big a burden as you state, otherwise, what is stopping them from going extinct?

Evolution, in the case of birds such as peacocks, is a balance between surviving to adulthood and being selected as a mate by the female. Over millions of years this has resulted in peacocks who grow elaborate feathers to show to females, while staying uneaten by predators. Until it grows to adulthood, the male peacock is as drab coloured as the female peahen, for this reason. Once his genetic material has been passed on, his survival is less relevant.
If you look closely at sparrows, the males and females are quite different, the males are more elaborate, again for the same reason as peacocks - to be selected as mates.

Evolution has many facets and adaptive pressures, the two here are natural selection and sexual selection. Read up on them and then answer your own question. It is all science and no guesswork. Science which you have clearly no desire to understand.
I would recommend Richard Dawkin's book - " The Ancestor's Tale" - have someone read it to you.

Answer 4

Like coral fishes, birds in rain forest need colorful plumage to be recognized. The colors are for species recognition. Some birds use songs to attract mates. Birds that feed on the ground need camouflage to protect them. Each habitat is different. That is how evolution works. If the species survives to the present time, it must have the right color.

If you say God created the different colors, still you have to answer your own question. Did God remove the predators from the rain forest?

Answer 5

If you had a group of guys looking for a wife they wouldn't all be looking for the same type of woman, some guys like a flashy sort of woman with red lipstick and prominent breasts, some men prefer a modest demure woman who does not seek to draw attention to herself though her dress.
Eventually each person finds a suitable partner, they mate and produce offspring.
So it is with the brown and coloured birds.

:D

Answer 6

Other answers here have clearly explained why your premise is completely incorrect. You have a very muddy understanding of the very thing you're trying to disprove.

I'm not a biologist. So it makes sense for me to trust biologists to practice biology. Do you claim to have an informed opinion about every arcane avocation, or is it just this one specific field which you like to weigh in on?

When I take my car to a mechanic I tell him what's wrong, but I don't presume to speculate about the inner workings of the engine to him. And I would never try to explain my car's exhaust problem with supernatural phenomena.

Try to better understand the thing you're criticizing next time, before you ask a question that only demonstrates how poorly informed you are.

Answer 7

All bird species don't occupy the same ecological niche numnuts. Trade-offs are a fact of life. Why are some cars super fast and expensive and others cheap and slow? Pure nonsense indeed.