Evolution is True Because Life Needs It

Question; would the lest aggressive fox survive in the dog eat dog world of natural selection? Tell me have these foxes given birth to, bobcats or more foxes? Wouldn’t these foxes be an example of adaption through man made manipulation? My apps that last sentance sliped through my proread.Edited by barnes, : No reason given.

Until you learn enough to get rid of this idea of one generation giving birth to an entirely different critter it really isn't worth trying to explain these things to you.Edited by Coyote, : Missing word

Who knows? Foxes have of course given birth to foxes. The result is not an example of man made manipulation.Foxes have never given birth to bobcats, and given that the event never happened, such an event is also not an example of man-made manipulation. Instead it is an example of your own over active imagination.It is also the case that evolution has never been about one animal giving birth to an animal of a different species. I suppose it is possible that you actually believe you are putting forth winning arguments refuting evolution. But in actuality you are attacking some goofy propositions that are not part of the theory of evolution.Before you can score any points, you have to get in the game.By the way, car engines don't reproduce. Living creatures do that. You see when mommy really loves daddy....

Again I apologize. I did not realize one could have minute changes in say the heart, lungs or liver without being detrimental. Wouldn’t those things be called defects, say mitral valve prolapse? That deformity is generally repaired not celebrated.

You didn't? How odd.But if you have never taken the slightest interest in biology, why the heck are you participating on this forum talking about evolution?Evolution explains biology, that's what it's there for. So if you know nothing about biology, why are you even interested in evolution?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How can breeding foxes i.e.; fox A, with fox B, to get fox C be remotely close to natural selection? I guess I don’t get it; wouldn’t that be more of a demonstration of how man got dogs from wolf? I.e. the dog exists because of man’s manipulation of the wolf, not by nature’s production of the dog.

Isn’t the cell just a smaller demonstration of complexity with in the whole? I.e. one cannot pull the piston out of a running engine without failure of the whole?

What does this have to do with evolution? In what scenario does evolution resemble this at all?No really, I want you to answer these questions. They are not rhetorical. I linked to a definition in case your grasp of vocabulary is bad as your grasp of biology.An engine could run with a failure in one piston. Happens all the time.

biology
   [bahy-ol-uh-jee] Show IPAnoun
1.
the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.2.
the living organisms of a region: the biology of Pennsylvania.3.
the biological phenomena characteristic of an organism or a group of organisms: the biology of a wormCall me crazy but I belive it says origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.

Because it is still selection. It is just artificial selection based on a predetermined trait that the scientists were looking for. This is an example of how selecting for one trait in the foxes phenotype, in this case behavior. Gives rise to additional changes in phenotype as expressed by morphology. If it were to occur naturally, it would be because the trait of being docile was being actively selected for in a breeding population. However whether through natural or artificial selection it is an example of how selection can lead to changes in the phenotype of a species.

I never have seen an engine run, with a failure in a piston, for any length of time before catastrophic failure. This does not demonstrate a good end result.

Two words:Oscar Pistorius.

Rueh: Good explanation. I am still at a loss, the word selection assumes thought. What dose nature ultimately select and why haven’t we seen any advancement in what we have. Has nature maid her Ultimate selection?

I don't belive they fixed Oscar Pistorius while he was running.

No it doesn't.For example, you will have noticed that scientists sometimes use the term "natural selection". But if you find out what they're talking about, they will explicitly say that this is an unintelligent process.