I'm beginning to think if the theory of Natural Selection had any validity to it, the world population wouldn't be anywhere near 7 billion+.
Natural Selection
- Thread starter abcaines
- Start date
Natural Selection is an observable phenomenon, not to be confused with Evolution. Evolutionists merely, and fallaciously, insist that it must be the driver behind Evolution.
The famed and oft-cited change in the black and white Peppered Moth populations in industrial Europe is a prime example of Natural Selection.
So it does have some validity in biology, but certainly the human population would have disappeared long ago without the intervention of God.
The famed and oft-cited change in the black and white Peppered Moth populations in industrial Europe is a prime example of Natural Selection.
So it does have some validity in biology, but certainly the human population would have disappeared long ago without the intervention of God.
Hasn't that one been revealed as a hoax?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,662
- Reaction score
- 2,574
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
It's an example of natural selection, but not speciation. There is one species of peppered moths, some of which are melanated and others not. The white and black ones aren't diverging into two separate subspecies. There's basically a change in demographics depending on how air pollution colours the trees.
Not a hoax, just not evidence of Evolution. They started with black and white moths, and ended with black and white moths. It's just that the densities of each in the population changed. The organisms didn't change.
Ah, the study wasn't a hoax but the pictures that accompanied it were.
The Peppered Moth
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, most moths in the UK were an off-white color, highly adapted to hiding from predators, such as birds, by resting on pale, mottled grey tree trunks. But the Industrial Revolution polluted the environment, raining soot down on the countryside. As a...
hoaxes.org
Edited.
Many apologies. I was tired and misread your post. Yes, Evolutionists are not usually ethical when presenting their evidence.
Another oft-cited example is the resistance that populations of microbes seem to develop to certain antibiotics. It's only the nonresistant microbes that die. The resistant ones already exist and survive and reproduce and create a new population that is resistant to antibiotics. There was no Evolution. It was just Natural Selection.
Many apologies. I was tired and misread your post. Yes, Evolutionists are not usually ethical when presenting their evidence.
Another oft-cited example is the resistance that populations of microbes seem to develop to certain antibiotics. It's only the nonresistant microbes that die. The resistant ones already exist and survive and reproduce and create a new population that is resistant to antibiotics. There was no Evolution. It was just Natural Selection.
Last edited:
I think there are many examples of evolution within species and I believe natural selection plays a part.
Example I remember is one species of bird where the beaks are much larger and thicker and jaws stronger in the habitat where they eat mainly nuts and much thinner in the habitat where they eat mainy seeds.
I also remember a study when DDT killed off most of the mosqutoes in a region until they adapted and became resistant to the chemical. Eventually they adapted to the point where the powerful chemical became ineffective. Species adapt to survive and science helps.
Heading to a meeting so no time to look them up. The problem comes when you try to prove evolution from species to species. There is not a shred of proof that the mosqutoes was turning into a frog or a human for that matter.
Example I remember is one species of bird where the beaks are much larger and thicker and jaws stronger in the habitat where they eat mainly nuts and much thinner in the habitat where they eat mainy seeds.
I also remember a study when DDT killed off most of the mosqutoes in a region until they adapted and became resistant to the chemical. Eventually they adapted to the point where the powerful chemical became ineffective. Species adapt to survive and science helps.
Heading to a meeting so no time to look them up. The problem comes when you try to prove evolution from species to species. There is not a shred of proof that the mosqutoes was turning into a frog or a human for that matter.
Last edited:
Technically, as Ekk mentioned about microbes, the species isn't adapting. There are genetics of the organism that make it more or less likely to survive something in it's environment. The ones that survive are just passing their genetic info to their descendants. They are not adapting.
So your saying some were born resistant to the DDT, so the ones that were resistant survived and their offspring were also resistant. Would you agree?
The species would still be surviving because of natural selection. Some would still say natural selection caused the species to become more resistant because the resistant ones were all that surveyed.
Another example I rememebr was a list of animals that have much thicker fur in cold climates and far less fur or no fur in warmer climents. Can't remember which animals were involved in the study.
Ekk do you believe, as I do, there is clearly evolution wihin species just not evolution from species to species. '
Gen. 1:24 “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
If by evolution you mean that new genetic information is created that didn't exist before in the kind, e.g., long or short hair, to enable survival, no.
The act of creation ended on the Sixth Day. The genetic information with all it's vast array of wonderful variation within a kind was whole and complete. With each speciation, there is a loss of information, and when a species becomes isolated from other variations of it's kind and becomes extinct, the sabre-toothed tiger for example, or the woolly mammoth, then that variation is lost to nature forever.
A variation of a kind with long hair would tolerate colder climates than a shorter haired variation of the same kind, and if that long hair was also the color of snow, well then there is an even better chance of survival being less visible to prey and predator. And that's what you're observing. You're not seeing long white hair being created to adapt to a cold, snowy climate.
And something to keep in mind is that the world today is less hospitable to life than the antediluvian world was. If there were no end to this world, eventually all life would die out.
Yes
But that is not the species "adapting". The ones that are born with the genetic information that allows them to survive did not change or cause a change.