Is the whole theory of Evolution based on "Natural Selection"?

Question

Natural selection does not change kinds it just adds varieties in a kind. Natural Selection can create a population with similar features but there si no evolution where the person or thing changes it kind. Natural Selection does not add to DNA information, it actually takes away or keeps selective info.

For example, antibiotic will affect a population of bacteria. The bacteria that are resistant to the anitbiotic will survive and reproduce. But the bacteria still remains bacteria. bacteria cannot be anything more than bacteria, it could become resistant to a specific antibiotic, but it is still bacteria.

Evolution is false. Kinds do not change. Humans where not fish or apes. NOT SCIENCE. Humans have always been. humans. Mutations are harmful or sometimes neutral, but never benefitial.

Im sure most scientists know that Evolution is false, but I think there is too much money been made for them to tell the truth.There is a big mafia and scandals in the scientific community

Answer 1

I think you did a good job here. And this is why evolution is still a theory. Check out this quote for Kenneth Tanaka, a geologist:
"'How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution? The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionist have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutiontionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motive when interpreting their findings. Scientist have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their carees and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles. "

So yes indeed their our many scientist with ulterior motives or a hidden agenda. How many have published articles on evolution, to later be exposed?!

Ok, I have another quote from Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig: "My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to -face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities fo life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin. The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments agaist the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator."

Well there you have it there are scientist that don't succomb to peer pressure, and can not be bought with money and prestige. And they humbly recognize that there is a Creator. And evolution, well that will indeed remain an unproven theory. Thank you.

Answer 2

So you believe that genes can change within a species (the bacteria example) given some time. Now imagine how much time was needed for that bacteria to change a little and become resistant to specific antibiotics. Not given a million years, doesn't it at least seem reasonable to assume that bacteria can change into a slightly higher form of life? Also, you can add DNA. If you study genetics, you would know DNA gets added all the time through various mechanisms.

Also, I don't know if you know this, but within the scientific community, there is no difference between micro-evolution (change within a species) and macro-evolution (new species formed over time). they are both just defined as evolution since both use the same mechanism, the only difference is time.

Answer 3

I think you've missed the point of evolution. there were three stages of evolution and we are not currently in a stage of evolution where humans would change; the first type of evolution was chemical evolution- this is when organic molecules were formed. Second was the evolution of cells capable of reproducing themselves. And then there is the stage of evolution of complex organisms that are capable of sexual reproduction.
So just b/c you are not seeing evolution on the form of 'changing its kind,' as you put it, is b/c humans already went through this form of evoulution!
Also keep in mind that most evolution is very difficult to see in 'real time' since it can take place over a long time. however if you look at people in N. Korea you will see that adults there are drastically shorter than average adults. why? because they are malnurished and the smaller they are the less nurishment they will ultimatly need. So evolution did cause these people to evolve into people who require less nurishment. And who knows, maybe a milion years from now they will be changed into a creature who gets its nurishment from carbon dioxide. its impossible to say which direction evolution will go. but evolution is true and just b/c you aren't seeing the changes you think are necessary to prove evolution, that does not by any means mean that the evolution you're talking about has never happened, it just means its not happening now.
Also, if you believe there is a conspiracy theory i suggest you take some science classes and actually learn about science, and how and why scienctists do what they do. All scientists everywhere are always trying to prove their theories false. This may sound strange, but its true. They use something commonly reffered to as FiLCHeRS - it stands for the rules of Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Look it up. maybe then you'll see there is no conspiracy.

Answer 4

No no no.

First a creature is born with a mutation (positive or not) then, if the mutation is helpful, then the creature is able to reproduce. If the mutation is bad or harmful then the creature just dies off and no one cares. That’s natural selection (I simplified A LOT)

Sometimes there is a mutation (that is dominant) that is neither helpful nor harmful, but because of the creature reproducing many time and then his offspring reproduce and viola! A whole other group of animals except these are blue instead of pink (for example). Understand?

Natural selection is actually separate from evolution, but the two help each other out.

I don’t want to write a novel here, but you are not quite right on with the fundamentals of natural selection and evolution. I’m not trying to insult you. Please don’t take it that way. :-)

Answer 5

As a thing goes through multiple changes over time adapting to whatever situation, eventually there becomes a point where it is less similiar to what it was, and more similar to something new.

You will find that as bacteria like in your example build resistance they become reclassified as new strains. There is not just one type of rhinovirus (aka the common cold). Those new strains could eventually grow into something wholly dissimilar to it's orginal form (thus, new species).

In addition, if selection does not create new species, how do you propose to answer why it is that breeding dogs creates new species of dogs? Hate to break it to you, but there were not always packs of wild Chihuahuas back in the day, they were bread that way...

The mistake you make is assuming because you can not see the process within your lifetime, it must not be true...

Answer 6

So, would you care to explain what it is about natural selection that given two isolated subpopulations will prevent them from becoming so completely different via independant natural selection that they can no longer breed?


Oh, and you're wrong about mutations never being beneficial. It's been found that the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia in individuals homozygous for that trait (ie: have the disease as they are double-recessive for it), is actually beneficial in people who are heterozygous for that trait (ie: don't have the disease, as they have one defective and one functional, and the functional gene is dominant), is in fact hugely beneficial against malaria, slowing or even stopping the disease in its tracks. Oh, and guess what -- we know the biochemical pathway by which the gene developed. It's a single base pair substitution error. If I recall correctly, an A was erroneously transcribed as a T.

Answer 7

Darwin's original theory, written up in "The Origin of Species" was based on natural selection. And he pretty much said, "If anyone can prove any part of this theory to be wrong, the whole thing falls apart. . ." (paraphrased).
As it stands today, there is a lot of variation on evolutionary theory; natural selection is still a big part of it, but other things now have been postulated to play a role, also.

Answer 8

You have heard of mutation right. The process sometimes gets screwed up and you do end up with longer strands. Plants are a lot better than animals when it comes to viable mutations, however it does occur in animals.

Nobody ever claimed that a pig could evolve into a human.

Could a pig evolve fins and become a swimming pig?

Perhaps.

Kind of like how a bird evolved fins and became a swimming bird (penguin)

Answer 9

Evolution is based on the fact that scientist can' prove anything!

Evolution is purely a THEORY. There is a book called "Scientific Approach to Christianity." It is written by a scientist who is a former athiest. I would highly suggest reading it. The book talks about how Science actually proves CREATION.

Answer 10

Wow have you missed the boat, brain-wise.

A SPECIFIC individual in a population does not change. It's OFFSPRING change, genius. Mutation causes a generation of a specific creature type to be different than their parents. With me so far? Good! SOME of those generations of creatures with different biological mutations will have traits that slightly increase their survival rates over those individuals WITHOUT that trait or traits. Still with me? GOOD! This means that MORE of those individuals with survival traits will survive to BREED than those WITHOUT those traits. Just slightly more of them. Over a few hundreds of thousands of years, those with the survival traits will have survived as a species, while those without will NOT, because of the competition. Now you have an entire population with the new traits. AGAIN you have mutation, NEW traits are produced, SOME of them survive, some dont, and the NEXT generation carries the traits of the SURVIVORS!!! WOW! AMAZING! TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS 4!!!

Imbecile.