You have absolutely no way of proving that. That's the theory part.
Except for the fact that it's pretty demonstrable that a creature more fit to survive in a given environment is more likely to survive and reproduce, and that in doing so it passes on these traits to it's offspring.
This has been directly observed in such instances as ring species. It is a fact.
Surviving means reproducing. Understood?
.
Surviving MEANS reproducing. Understood?
Survive
1. To remain alive or in existence.
2. To carry on despite hardships or trauma; persevere: families that were surviving in tents after the flood.
3. To remain functional or usable: I dropped the radio, but it survived.
Now, stop playing word games. We know what we mean when we use the word "survive" and you know what we mean as well. You're just dodging the point.
That's a ridiculous statement! No creature can reproduce UNsuccessfully.
Surviving means reproducing - understood?
No creature can reproduce unsuccessfully? Are you that ignorant of biology?
Not reproducing successfully means "not reproducing" or "not reproducing healthy offspring". This shouldn't even need an explanation, wilson, this is basics of the basics we're talking about here. Don't be so dense.
Mutations always weaken the original organism. It does not lend itself to any improvement in the organism. Experiments with Drosophilia proved it. Experiments with plants proved it. Microevolution does not lead to Macroevolution. You have absolutely no evidence that proves it. Only theory.
You are lying through your teeth.
The vast majority of mutations do not weaken nor stengthen an organism - the vast majority are neutral. Very few are detrimental, and very few are positive, but mutations can and have added benefits to living organisms. Here are the studies of such mutations occuring:
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Think about it, wilson. Mutations are random, so why would they
always be harmful? That makes no sense. Mutations rearrange information in the genome randomly, so they stand just as much a chance of adding benefits (however small) to an organism than harming it.
You lost me there, fella.
You acted as if the example brought up in the definition you used was always the case - it isn't. It was an examples used to illustrate the difference between measuring fitness and measuring success in reproducing. Just because a certain creature reproduces a lot does not make it more fit because those offspring could be too weak to survive. Understood?
You just insist on talking nonsense. It is said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I told you already and I'm telling you again:
No organism can survive and reproduce Unsuccessfully. IT IS ALWAYS SUCCESSFUL.
This argument is not only demonstrably false (you ever heard of miscarriages, stillbirths, infertility?), but it also makes no sense. What does the law of causation have to do with reproduction?
Honestly, wilson, you seem to be extremely naive about this subject.
Your entire conversation heavily presupposes evolution takes place and you frame your thoughts and words to suit that mentality.
I'm trying to explain to you how natural selection works. Of course I'm going to presuppose that evolution is true, because it is.
I think I know why you insist on this "reproducing" kick. That's because you believe that the mechanisms for morphology is in the reproduction. It is only a belief.
Again, you don't appear to be making any sense whatsoever. Are you now going to assert that living things don't reproduce with variation and that mutations don't occur through reproduction?
That is even more nonsense. The peacock didn't DEVELOP anything! It does not know HOW it got its feathers and colors. The giraffe didn't develop its long neck.
DNA, morphology, the fossil record and basically all of biology disagrees with you. Also, where did I claim that peacocks "knew" how they got their feathers and colours? What are you even talking about?
Did you "develop" fingers? Why did they stop growing at the right length?
Did you develop eyes? Or the ability to ENJOY life? These things never came on slowly. Understood?
They came on slowly over countless generations of my ancestors through the process of evolution. Asserting otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence does not suddenly invalidate that claim.
In those areas "natural selection" is unemployed.
What are you talking about? I've already explained why natural selection is not just about surviving predators. It's about reproducing successfully. Organisms which carry mutations that increase their chances to mate and reproduce successfully are fitter and more likely to thrive in the gene pool.
You seriously cannot be this misinformed about basic biology. You have no business debating this subject if you cannot understand this extremely simple concept.
