In other words, you have no idea how the production of milk evolved.
Once again you are simply showing your utter ignorance. I already explained the basics to you. Lets move slowly one small step at a time.
First, you understand that milk is simply not something necessary for life? There are plants that do not need milk, fish that do not need milk, e-coli that do not need milk, birds that do not need milk and all reproduce.
The thing about science is that it's all published. Anyone can research what is known about almost any scientific idea. These days you just type a phrase into google like the evolution of lactaion or the evolution of the mammary gland and then look for a good scientic source. Here's the first one I found
You'll see that it's headed The origin and evolution of lactation and it's published in the Journal of Biology which is a great start. It's also not behind a paywall and it's not highly technical. So there you go, easy. If you read that you'll find out what we know and you'll also find out that Darwin was wrong about it.
(I suspect that your creationist sources picked lactation - as well as the eye - to talk garbage about because 150 years ago Darwin mentioned them. Science moves on, discovers more and knowledge increases; dumb ideas never change it seems.)
What you do is read some antique garbage on a creationist web site, half understand it and post a one-liner here looking for a reaction. You're not remotely interested in what we actually know about the evolution of lactation are you? You won't even read that paper will you? You'll just bugger off without answering and return in a month spouting more bollocks about flagella or some such, having learned nothing but feeling smug inside your ignorance.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
How does 0.05% of a mammary system confer a survival advantage?
You can lick salt off your own skin. The right balance of salt in your body confers a survival advantage.
A lot of animals groom each other and eat the bugs. That's a double survival advantage: a nutritional supplement for one and a control of parasites for the other.
There are even symbiotic relationships between different species.
It's a pretty simple principle really. Every little bit helps. So anything a mother produces that can help her baby survive is an evolutionary advantage. A couple of mutations here and there can make a big difference.
If I simply give spare change to the creative homeless guy spinning his sign on the corner, and if i am doing it to alleviate my conscience, perhaps I am not doing enough.
Did you read my post at all? There's nothing there that requires any imagination; it's all observed fact: salt, grooming, symbiosis. It's a very simple fact that many species get nutrition from something on another organism's body.
Darwinists have to dumb-down very complex processes in order to make them seem plausible.
Yes, it has to be dumbed down pretty far for creationists to understand it.
Without this vital concession, junk science has no chance at all of surviving.
Science will survive with or without dumb creationists. It survived dumb flat-earthers, didn't it? There's a survival advantage to intelligence.
Your choice your responsibility.... no one gets away with mocking God for long...No one as in NO ONE.
There is nothing more hilarious than Christians pretending to be terrorists. Faith also does it all the time. When they have no reasonable defense they pull their plastic sword and shield out of the toy box and threaten torture on everyone in their vicinity not currently agreeing with them. I call it the Fangs behind the smile.