Destroying Darwinism

Natural selection is not a comparison. It's a perfectly valid working mechanism that fits not only what we see in the world today, but also the prehistoric fossil record.Natural selection occurs when environmental pressures cause a particular trait or characteristic to be more favourable - such as gazelles being able to run faster, let's say, and get away from predators easier. The pressure of predation on the gazelles ensures that it is far more likely for the faster animals to survive, as the slower ones are killed and eaten - therefore the faster animals are more likely to breed and the proportion of faster animals increases overall. As this pressure continues to work on the gazelle population, over time the average speed of any individual animal increases because its environment constantly selects the most favourable form for survival. When environmental pressures work on any species over a long period of time, a combination of favourable traits may be enhanced to the point that the original animals and their descendents do not resemble each other sufficiently for them to be grouped together in the same species - and the "new" animals are defined separately. This is how new species appear - natural selection, over long periods, causes evolution.If you don't feel this doesn't work properly, or doesn't fully explain certain things, do you have any thoughts on an alternative scientific mechanism?Incidently I didn't quite understand what you're getting at in your original post; some clarification would be nice.ThanksThe Rock Hound

You still make no sense, Syamsu. You have produced no argument against evolution or natural selection that I can understand, let alone be convinced by. Rambling on about sheep having five legs black and white moths does not constitute a scientific discussion, and as far as I can see you are merely wasting all our time. I refer you to Dr. Taz's earlier post regarding scientific papers on the subject of evolution - if you are not willing to at least learn about this subject, how can you formulate an opinion on it? Everyone else posting here has been clear in their arguments against you. Calling their input a "huge amount of nonsense" is insulting, especially when your own arguments are so confusing.In regards to your earlier comments - NS does not stop and start, as you say. It is a continuous process, as the environment constantly puts pressure on a species."More favourable"? This phrase is your justfication that NS is a comparison? Of course, then - a comparison is involved because we must compare the original species to the new one that has arisen as a result of the enhancement of certain traits. This occurs because of the mechanism of natural selection.Finally, variation and natural selection are intrinsically linked. How can the most favourable traits be enhanced if there is no variation to produce them? If there is no variety in the height, weight, colour etc. of a species, then no natural selection occurs. Take your example of the moths - they obviously must show slight variations in their colour, no matter what it is. If those with a lighter or darker colour are more likely to survive because of their slightly better camoflage, then overall the moth species becomes lighter or darker because the most advantageous variation is selected and enhanced.If this does not convince you - and I doubt it will - could you possibly present some scientific evidence showing that natural selection does not occur? I should point out that you also have not answered my original question - you have not presented any alternative to evolution or natural selection. You have merely stated constantly that you think they are wrong.(By the way I think Attack of the Clones was absolutely terrible - I prefer the original movies.)The Rock Hound

I will continue to be confused by Syamsu's arguments, and I will not be posting on this topic anymore.Anyone who's more than a little tired of this is free to join me.The Rock Hound