A thought occurred to me today. Or, rather, yesterday, as it is now early into the next morning. How do evolutionists explain taset buds? After all, they have no apparent function save to give us a sense of pleasure while eating food. Even then, some foods that are most useful and needed to our bodies, many peopel cannot stand the sensation their taste buds send to the brain when they do eat them. Taste buds are not imminent for survival. If natural selection, the process by which certain traits are selected merely on their ability to promote that species’ existence, explains the complexities of life, how is it that things such as taste buds have survived? Perhaps evolutionists claim that taste buds are remnants of a thing that served a more productive and survival-inducive purpose early in human evolution, like the appendix. Well, first off, the issue of the appendix being useless or merely a remnant of an earlier life form that humanoids evolved from has been scientifically disproven, but I will leave that up to you to research on your own.
‘Tis the same thing concerning one of the highest pleasures of man – sex. It would seem that a more conducive reproductive procedure would be what is known as the “pollination action”. A man merely ‘achoos’ on a group of young, sexually mature females, and ‘poof’, they are all pregnant. Surely natural selection would have selected against such a thing as sex in the way we see it. As a side note, would not have natural selection also selected against humans being only able to have (on average) one to two children at once? And then to have to wait a year and a half before next estrous cycle? For cattle the most efficient calving interval is considered 12 months, and that is the highest such interval among livestock species.
Just some thoughts.