For those of you that do not believe in evolution, what do you think of Natural Selection?

Question

Darwin proposed Natural Selection, which is part of the evolution theory.
Basically here what it explains (an example) : If there r tall pea plants and short pea plants in a valley where there is lots of violent winds, the tall pea plants r likely to bend and break their stems. Tall pea plants start dying, while the short pea plants (uneffected by the wind because they r short) flower, get pollenated, and produce seeds. The seeds carry the gene that make the plant grow short. The seeds get distributred in the valley by birds and other mammls. So, the population of the short plants grow and thrive. The short plants were naturally the fittest so they thrived over the tall plants.

Now, for those of you that don't accept the theory of evolution, what do you think about this part of the theory (Natural Selection)?
The explination above can be applied to plants and animals. Does the example I gave not seem logical???

NOTE: I am not trying to convert you, just get your opinon.

As far as my question goes: Evolution is to be considered longterm (dinos being related to today's lizards), and Natural Selection as a short term or a non-stop process (like my example with the pea plants).

Answer 1

Has it not accored to critics of the ToE that if you pile enough mutations that survive over vast expanses of time, you will eventually get a distinctively different species from the original? Unlike what the creationists like to set up as a straw man, the ToE does not say anything about one species magically becoming another. If such a thing were to happen, it would destroy the ToE entirely. You will never see a dog give birth to a cat or an insect hatch an arachnid. Moreover, EVERY fossil and EVERY species is "transitional", in a state of change from one thing to another by incredibly small degrees. Wait a million years and see what we might evolve into.

Another straw man conjured up by creationists is that there is an assumption that everything is evolving "towards" something--some kind of ultimate form, perhaps. This is not true. Creatures change and adapt to their environment. If an environment does not change significantly, then the species will not change significantly. If the climate of the Earth were to radically change (suddenly or over time), humans would have to adapt in one way or another. Or die out. If amidst this hypothetical change humans were to develop a mutation that would improve their survival in the new environment, then eventually surviving humans would show a preponderance of that mutation.

Humans have, in fact, mutated into a variety of subgroups based on environment...but the differences between these subgroups is so minor and insignificant that each group can interbreed with one another and produce viable offspring. If a subgroup should develop that could not successfully interbreed with the other groups, then that new group would indeed deserve a new catagory of its own.

Answer 2

Or perhaps those taller plants overshadowed the shorter ones causing them to die off. Natural selection does exist to an extent. However, this in no way validates Darwin's Theory of Evolution. As time goes on his theory continues to weaken. It a fair attempt, but lacks the scientific evidence upon which it is supposed to be based. Darwin claimed that in time such evidence would present itself, but this has never happened. Many of the world's most prominant Darwinist's have come to accept the theory's failure.

"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to theory.
These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:—First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some other animal with widely different habits and structure? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?
Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to the instinct which leads the bee to make cells, and which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?
Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?"
Charles Darwin,
Origin of Species, Ch. 6, p133

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." - Charles Darwin

- from N.C. Gillespie, 'Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation' (1979)

Answer 3

That is the mistake in the logic of the Natural Selection. When bigger trees break due to wind, God steps in to protect the taller trees and hence the balance is restored... Basically the people who don't believe in evolution has not studied evolution very well. If they have then it is a bunch of phony scientists who have got massive funding from the church and has written arguments that can give raise to doubt in common people. Day by day we are getting more and more proof supporting Evolution and Natural Selection.

According to me I believe that there is a God, but I also do not believe in any religions teachings (maybe except Bahai faith - I am not of Bahai faith).. Many of those teachings are illogic and conflicts with other religions. We for sure cannot say that one is the right one... If you say Chirstianity is the right one then do you believe that God sent only the prophets to Israel thus leaving more than half of the population (India, China and Americas) without any prophets?

Answer 4

Natural selection is a functional process that is not in doubt by any credible scientist on the planet.

Someone asked why there are so many idiots if natural selection is true. Natural selection can only reduce the number of idiots on the planet if they have some trait that prevents them from surviving to their reproductive age or prevents them from reproducing.

Answer 5

Its called adaptation.

Every specie has what might be called gene defects, that come out some times.

If this gene becomes advantages to survival, it will be exploited!

No different that man exploit of a bigger cow, faster horse, rare flower.

But notice in this, a cow can not be made into a hippo, or large bird, or shark!

Natural Selection happens all the time, Evolution has never happened, never will!

Answer 6

You must have been sleeping it off in class again. Darwin exposed evolution which would be another name for natural selection as both refer to a species ability to adapt to the changes in its environment.

Answer 7

Good luck. I've wasted so much time on these people. My new track is to ask first if they accept that ANY two species might share a common ancestor. If they won't accept that, there is no hope.

See what I mean? "Most species would be more advanced than they are". Exactly how far? And advanced towards what? Bats' echolocation systems seem pretty damn advanced to me.

Answer 8

as a christian and a scientist, i have witnessed many verified accounts of natural selection. from the moth that does not have "eyes" on it's wings, and does not surrive long enough to parent the same genetic sport...so that gene trait is lost.

however, there is no evidence of the cosmic leap that would have to occur in order to produce todays "evolved" species.

there is also no fossil record of any intermediate form of a species that would show even an extremely long process of evolution via natural selection.

therefore, although there are verified accounts of natural selection, the actual survival of the fittest dialogue does not work to show that this is a process of evolution nor does it show that it is an actual phase of species change in their basic DNA or gene structure.

-eagle

Answer 9

yes this is logical and many of these adaptations can be caused by deformation that actually benefitss an animal then it lives longer, mates creating more of that deformation and then there is another breed of the animal before long i believe in this as well as god so there is my two cents

Answer 10

Natural selection as you describe it sounds logical. It is the hypotheses that one animal or plant will turn into another species, by accident; that is not only illogical, but, scientifically impossible!