No. Natural selection is supposed to rid the population of mutation. But, you just said that mutation is the driving force of evolution. Therefore, evolution rids the population of itself. I suppose you'd argue "no, it only takes away the bad ones." To which my reply is: Then how do "bad" mutations still exist, if evolution has existed for millions of years? Shouldn't evolution have taken care of that by now? Flaws and holes a plenty.

[quote]No. Natural selection is supposed to rid the population of mutation. [b]not quite. You need to understand what natural selection is. Natural selection is a phrase that describes how the environment (climate, competing species, competing animals of its own species, local environmental hazards, food sources, etc ) the species lives in affects it generation to generation. What happens is the traits and mutations that don't allow an animal to survive as well as it can compared to having another trait or mutation (like color variation), are less likely to passed on to the next generation. As those influencing factors change, so does what is naturally selected, and since environments are never the exact same over time or location to location, you end up with a wide range of results, which results in a wide range of life. It's about the ability to survive. [/b] But, you just said that mutation is the driving force of evolution. [b]I said it's one of them. So is natural selection, migration, and genetic drift.[/b] Therefore, evolution rids the population of itself. [b]no, because that's not what happens like I mentioned.[/b] I suppose you'd argue "no, it only takes away the bad ones." To which my reply is: [b](this isn't what I would argue, but I'll address it since you bring it up)[/b] Then how do "bad" mutations still exist, if evolution has existed for millions of years? Shouldn't evolution have taken care of that by now? Flaws and holes a plenty. [b]The only flaws and holes are in your understanding. Bad and good is not a black and white term. For example, the mutation of animals being born completely white (not albino, see pic) would typically be a survival disadvantage in most environments, so it gets selected against, but in some environments that color mutation becomes an advantage, and becomes the norm (example polar bears). Some mutations are neither bad nor good, and simply exist and get passed on by chance until they become the norm, this is called genetic drift. [/b] [/quote]

Lol look at you, copying and pasting to look smart. Well, if you're right at the end of all this, enjoy laughing at my headstone. I'm done conversing with someone stuck in Nowehereville. Good day sir.

None of that is copy paste. That is all my own words, from my own understanding. I know its rare to run into that on the internet, but I was a park ranger for 3 years, and a forest ranger for 3 more. Understanding evolution and natural selection is part of being able to manage, maintain, and conserve natural lands and endangered species. The more you know.

Well, good for you Mr. Ranger. I forgot that that gives you the ultimate authority to determine the real answer in this issue with absolute validity. Excuse me while I go tell Yogi why his species will never turn into a fish, something "evolution" claims it can do. Funny how evolution can't explain why monkeys still exist, since humans came from monkeys apparently. Or any land animals for that matter, since everything allegedly came from the ocean. Here, enjoy a mute.

Congrats on showing your lack of understanding on the topic. Evolution does not claim a bear can become a fish. And im not even going to provide a rebuttal to the monkeys comment because that horse has been beaten to death. It still shocks me when a person can say that and expect to be taken seriously. I do not have ultimate authority but I do understand it, and I have observed natural selection at work in nature. So I do have [u]some[/u] authority on the matter, because unlike yourself I understand what evolution is. Thanks for bailing on the topic when someone can prove you wrong.

Lol, evolution does claim that a bear can become a fish [i]if Nature "thinks" it need to be a fish[/i]. Grade school teaches you that buddy. Enjoy yourself while you can, this is all you got. Live it up.

At least he'll die with an actual understanding of the world. Please don't reproduce, and if you do, don't brainwash them with your "science is a myth" business, because the human race needs people that will advance our race not stand in one place wasting away, refusing to accept stone hard evidence. The children being born today are what is going to drive us to either extinction or our civilization will explode outwards expanding. The way things are going now with all these closed minds. We're sitting ducks slowly killing ourselves. That is natural selection. As we eat up the planet and continue to scream at each other were killing ourselves. The planet will undoubtedly run out of our non renewable resources, but by then if we're still on this planet were probably already going to be dead, earth is not sustainable. We're pushing the limits of what this planet can do, we will naturally select ourselves if we don't change, or get off it soon. When people like you refuse to accept things as elementary as evolution and natural selection, you're only making yourself look blind. You're not going to convince them it doesn't exist. You're just [i]refusing[/i] to accept it. The children of the future need to understand the planet and how it works, they can be religious and whatever else. But they [b]have[/b] to accept science or else our race [i]will undoubtedly[/i] die on this planet. And soon.

Oh look, another Numbskull to mute.

Oh look another person that will lead our race to ruin

Don't worry. It's natural selection. Eventually these close minded people will die out as time goes on.

Maybe that's what you got from it, or that's what your teacher incorrectly taught you, but either way you're still wrong. Please at least understand a topic before you try to debunk it. It just makes you seem like a fool, and your just doing yourself a disservice by doing that.

Here we go again: My questions: If you were to estimate how much time it took humanity to come into being from the same ancestors between humans and monkeys, how long would it take for you to soon to distinguish them as a new species? I don't just walk up to an orangutan and say, "That's one dumb, hairy human who has no capabilities of speaking. Let me go help and 'teach this man to fish.'" Accordingly, evolution requires time for every organism to develop, but what spawns the necessity for an instant but minuet, biological change that we all categorize as macro-evolution? In the OP, it explained how an insect scenario required the environmental hazards that were present to the ancestors to always be present in order to prevent the evidently cyclical process of micro-evolution from reversing. Humans are not able to live for hundreds of years; so the only thing we can do to attempt to prove evolution true through our scientific processes is to observe micro-evolution in action and point out that those results are substantiated evidence. However, the process is evidently cyclical. It is said by many evolutionists that the earth created a sundry array of gases to cool the earth so to make it prolific for bearing life. Scientifically, we know that organic and inorganic material alone can't have any reaction with each other in order to spawn or reproduce biological material of any kind. Then how did life begin, or better yet, where on Earth did an amoeba come from? Let's skip that question since all evolutionists appear to want to do is skip that fact. Alright, an amoeba is on Earth, somehow. Now, in order to either help stabilize the environment or the biological specimen itself, it must evolve. How? By going through a process that we call micro-evolution. Over millions to billions of years, that amoeba will genetically figure out to grow a limb. Then that second amoeba, who we know not where it came from, decides to help, or at least decides to either not exist and all biologically life as we know it was a hermaphrodite (possessing both sexes) in the first place, reproduces. This process repeatedly occurs over millions to billions of years in order for life to become stable on Earth. Correct? Question: If life was already at a state of environmental equilibrium, why would it need to evolve in the first place? To rid itself of mutations? Some evolutionists say that it is by this process micro-evolution drives macro-evolution on a profound scale, but by the dogma of "Natural Selection," that which is mutated is declined by its kind for procreation. Not to be at all offensive or conclusive on the welfare state of human choice, but I wish to ask every person individually: How many of you are willing to "fall in love" with a retarded human being? They are human and are given as much right as the next, but the lucky love life often bestowed upon such a person is rare and discouraged. It might by which the process of evolution uses to promote the biology of humans to a higher state up the evolutionary chain, which is strangely determined by nothing that evolutionists can explain. Environment? No. Mutations? We all know that it is by "Natural Selection" that we as a biological organisms "evolve" very slowly quench mutations one genetic step at a time. Then what? What in this bloody world could have ever jump started our existence in the first place?

I've replied to this once, I see no reason why you posted it twice or why I need to answer it twice. See my other answer below my original comment.

And you couldn't answer even all the questions. Where there's an error in the thinking of evolution,which was highlighting one important flaw (origins), there is an error with the whole thinking of its philosophy.