natural selection is wrong

Ok well i didn't have the attention span to do much more than skim most of that, but it doesn't appear that the article even questions the principle of natural selection. I found the paragraph about lightening, it only explains why lightening is not included in the natural selection formula. And remember lightening doesn't strike that often anyway, well i guess worldwide it's always going, but the the chance of it have much of an effect on any population i think is very unlikely.So i will now make an obvious question and point: How is natural selection wrong? If it fits its enviroment best, it survives (generally). How can it be any more simple? Somethings die, some things live, and its obvious to conclude that most of the things that died died because they were weak, and the ones that survived did so cause they were stronger than the weak ones (in which ever niche the enviroment requires), thus it doesn't take much effort to realize that the next generation is a general improved adaptation to the enviroment than the last. ---------- i know it's pretty stupid for me to repeat a concept you all understand, i'm just wondering how anyone can seriously question it. I do encourage questioning, but if you're using logic, it doesn't take much questioning to comprehend natural selection. If you choose to deny it for fun or some other abstract reason ((i'd say the same if you chose to disbelieve in gravity, the only way you can be serious is if you are functioning on a completely different mentallity for some strange (but possibly cool) reason)), rock on, but if you actually think you have scientific proof against it, its probably cause your in denial you cant reconcile the idea with your religous beliefs. Go ahead and propose the 'proof', but i don't see that such has been done in this instance.This message has been edited by PeriferaliiFocust, 06-21-2004 06:48 PM

Still don't know what the hell is goin on here, where did the these fifteen pages come from?
Of coarse there are modifications to any original theory, i'm still confused by the title of this thread. Do you not agree that natural selection is obvious and observable? Of coarse inevitably some fit organisms will die before passing on their genes, and some weak ones will survive. Is this what the argument is? By pure probability this happens, but total the population is not effected much by these random occurances.And yes it's quite simple that neutral selection, is only part of natural selection. Do you understand that? Do you understand that because i have a foot does not mean that i am a foot? Maybe not a good comparison, but it appears that your proposition goes along those lines of idiocy.This seems like simple math! One is part of of Two. It is not the same thing as two. Two is effected partially by one, but most certainly is not one. Except if we're going by ratios the effect of nuetral selection would be more like one to ten, at the most. I don't really know, it would vary in different situations. Are you trying to say that nuetral selection cancels natural selection? WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Give me a simple example, i will not accept a refrence to the paper. If you cant give me a simple example then you have no right to argue whatever it is that you are arguing.[Any neutral selection story is now a natural selection story, according to the paper]I don't care what the flip the paper says, i don't even think the paper supports what you are trying to say. All i want to know is what are saying about natural selection? Are you saying nuetral selection cancels it out completely? It almost seems like you are trying to discredit the theory of gravity because of the fact that if i jump i am temporarily countering the forces of gravity.