(July 14, 2016 at 2:07 am)Irrational Wrote:(July 13, 2016 at 1:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Sorry, natural selection was mentioned, but I didn't notice the change. I would agree, that "natural selection" is fairly well supported.
Natural selection implies micro- and macroevolution is true. This is the natural flow, logically speaking. If this is not true, then something is in the way of preventing evolution from being true. But what evidence do we have for this "thing"? And why is it that the collective evidence clearly suggests there isn't any such "thing" actually?
I'm curious about your statement I bolded above. How did you come to that conclusion? My understanding of natural selection is that it is a filtering mechanism not a creative one. That variations which are more likely to cause death or reduce reproduction are removed from the gene pool. There are some who deal in population genetics who question the limits of natural selection. How much of a role does the size of the population affect natural selection? And also, how much of an advantage, is required in order for natural selection to become a contributing factor in the non-diversification of genetic information.
