What exactly is natural selection and precisely where does it occur?

Another question is if Natural selection is capable of creating new species. In this case would darwinists put more stress on random mutation that makes possibilities from which natural selection can choose.In thread discussing cospeciation they put more stress to natural selection - in other case cospeciation would lead to conclusion that it originated by "chance alone".Darwinists minds are captured in the prison of "random mutation" and "natural selection" concepts which blind their reasoning completely. Once it is fit of "random mutation" then fit of "natural selection" combined with "sexual selection".They try to explain all secrets of Nature using these concepts that were never observed to create new species. Belief in natural selection is so strong that they suppose it to be also there where we do not detect it by reason and experience - like in the case of white coloration of swans, or in many cases of curious mimicry discussed elsewhere. Having only phantasy they try to create stories how natural selection forms organs and coloration of species that helps them survive and also those that have no connection to survival. In that case they suppose that such connection existed once or we cannot detect it but it exist - we must only believe. To believe that natural selection combined with random mutation is allmighty evolutionary force that disclose all secret of Nature is only foundation that darwinism is resting upon.Of course there are many scientists who deny Natural selection as evolutionary force - they consider it as only maintaing force that removes extremities. Eimer, Heikertinger, Suchantke and all great men mentioned in Davison's Manifesto.

Exclusive or inclusive phenomena who cares. Sexual selection is something darwinists use when they are clueless how to explain a phenomenon in Nature by Natural selection alone. When exclusive or inclusive combination of both principless can't lead to palusible explanation they invent somethig else - especially worth of notice is this one:

quote:

---

The polymorphic female form of P. phorcas is believed to have
originated as a male-mimicking 'transvestitism' from a primitively sexually dimorphic color pattern (Vane-Wright 1976; Clarke et al. 1985).

---

See the common darwinistic construct "is believed to have originated". And it is not all:

quote:

---

This suggests that the species may initially have
been sexually dimorphic (with brown/yellow females and
black/green males) and that a so-called transvestite evolutionary
step (Vane-Wright 1976; Clarke et al. 1985) produced
male-like females and was the origin of the female color

---

What a story-tellers some darwinists are having no plausible natural selection or sexual selection explanation at hand.

Gerhard, don't take it personally. Popular darwinists are popular story-tellers and Gerhard you are neither of them. Gerhard, I understand your problem. You suppose that to underestand natural selection is something very challenging. Maybe it have taken lot of your time untill you comprehend what is it all about. Now you suppose nobody can underestand it as well as you do. No wonder that for metaphysical reasoning there is no place in your reasoning Gerhard. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Darwinists cannot EXPERIMENTALLY prove natural selection and "random mutation and natural selection" as force behind evolution. Other explanations are open - one of them are Grasse's and Heikertinger's and Eimer's "internal forces", Berg's evolution governed by law -"Nomogenesis", or Goethian "Gestaltungen" supported by professor Adolf Portmann (and his conception of self-representation or "Selbstdarstellung"), spiritual forces according Broom, Davison's derepression of potentialities via meiosis...According Punnett, Heikertinger and some other scientists "natural selection" just remove extremities.

quote:

---

At most, the environment plays only a similar role with regard to organisms; IT CAN ONLY PROVOKE AND SET IN MOTION SOME POTENTIAL THAT IS ALREADY PRESENT."

---

Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 312 (his emphasis).That's an idea. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.