Joined: Aug. 2007
Let me start out by saying that I do not believe in natural selection. I will explain why shortly. But the point of this post is to ask evolutionists what it would take for you not to believe in natural selection. What would qualify as disproof of the theory? Is there such a thing? Let's find out.
First of all, let's look at Charles Darwin's book title...here it is:
On the Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection
Ok. So Darwin, as do his followers, believes that animals evolve BECAUSE of natural selection. It's not enough to say that natural selection merely exists in nature, instead, we are to believe that natural selection is responsible for how animals change.
So for example, the peppered moth was said to have evolved because of their predators (birds) ate a particular color of moth (I think it was white) because it stood out on the tree trunks...and because the white moths were eliminated, this explained the why the dark moths came to dominate the population. It is also important to note that, according to the theory, both the white and dark moths were just random variations within the population.
Ok. So tell me, what is the possible disproof of the preceding scenario that natural selection caused this change in the population? It seems to me that if, instead of NS, the moths all changed individually, purposefully from white to black or if white moths gave birth to black offspring, then the idea that selection caused the change would be disproven.
So in this case, evolutionists would have to believe that if there were no birds or any other predators to consume the ill-adapted moths, that the population would have never evolved, right? The birds caused the evolution, not the moths themselves.
But now, even though science has uncovered a handful of mechanisms that allow for species to self-adapt to changing environments, evolutionists are STILL saying natural selection plays a role. But if the variation comes from within, it wouldn't matter if the birds ate the white moths or not, natural selection would not be the cause of change, which is the whole point of Charles Darwin's book. (Look again at his title, if necessary.)
And, with moths, that's exactly what's happening. See the following site:
http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/moths/polyphenism1.html (notice the bottom picture where the moths are able to adapt to changing background surfaces.)
So as someone who doesn't believe in the power of natural selection, what else am I supposed to do to convince you evolutionists that NS has no power to evolve a population other than to point out that individual animals have the ability to adapt themselves? And once you see that individuals are adaptive, how exactly is it that you can still claim that natural selection causes evolution?
Finally, to me, natural selection is something that would most certainly happen if individuals were not adaptive. If there truly were pools of random genetic variation in populations, and if this genetic variation provided variable degrees of fitness, then competition would indeed rule the animal kingdom, and the fittest would surely survive. BUT, individual animals are adaptive, and there is no reason to believe that any given moth will not adapt like any other moth in the same situation. Thus, if all organisms in a given environment adapt the same trait in the same way, there is no sense in saying that one will be any more fit than the next....and instead of specific genes determining who breeds, it's mostly a matter of being in the right place at the right time and finding a willing female, just like us humans.