Populations naturally grow geometrically, while their food supplies grow arithmetically. This means that, eventually, a population will produce more individuals than can be sustained by its food supply. When the necessary winnowing occurs, who do you suppose will be eliminated first? On Malthus’ principle of population alone, you know that the weak ones will be eliminated first. The rest of evo theory is just an explanation of how that process unfolds.
That's a nice simple explanation. Problem is that it is too simple and doesn't address the complexity of the process sufficiently, specifically how winnowing reduces genetic diversity and several other things such as populations don't actually or necessarily grow consistently. There are a lot of factors, including the fact that the "weak" is a rather vague term as what constitutes weakness can change. It's a violatile situation.
Have you ever considered that maybe Darwin’s evo theory is a Creation-friendly explanation of how God did it ” how He managed to make the process work?
I have. I used to think that was likely but the more I looked into the facts of Darwinism and the more I continue to look into it, the more convinced I am it is a sham.....not to be harsh, but I don't see it as factually supported.
So my dispute is not religioiusly based except the more I look into the way evolution has been accepted and taught, I think there are anti-religious motives coloring the process, at least for many leading evos, not all that espouse it though.
It just doesn't fit the data, nor explain it. Maybe some other evo theory will, but not NeoDarwinism.
™ Version 4.2
