According to Darwin, the organic evolution is due to (a) intraspecific competition
Answers
Everything Darwin came up with has turned out to be the opposite of how evolution happens. His theory is going down in history as the stupidest and most failed theory in history.
The concept of evolution was well known before Darwin, including universal common descent. The part that is Darwin’s disaster was his pitiful attempt to explain how evolution happens.
The four main tenets of his theory of evolution, now all known to be wrong, are:
That inheritance is a blend of the two parents.
That changes from parent to offspring are random.
That evolution is gradual, in numerous, successive, slight changes.
That a death/survival or reproductive success filter somehow was a CAUSE, rather than an effect of evolution.
That last fallacy, which he awkwardly called “selection”, is the craziest of all. Clearly, selection is nothing but a SUBTRACTIVE filter, incapable of causing anything at all. Just as clearly, it is a result, not a cause, of evolution, just based on obvious chronological order. Even more clearly, competition for limited resources, when it happens, causes death, not any evolutionary upgrades.
Selection, which doesn’t allow a few steps back to go many steps forward, is an enormous hindrance to evolution, and literally CAN’T be any help.
How could he have been so stupid as to believe that the death of one organism could possibly have any upgrading effect on the traits of a surviving organism? Selection has only two options: Kill or not-kill. Death is harmful and the end of a lineage, not evolution at all. To “not-kill” is the passive state of doing nothing at all. Selection literally does nothing at all. It can’t because it isn't even really a thing that exists, but a poorly chosen, tautological term.
Does transparency CAUSE light? Filters CAN’T cause anything that doesn’t already exist in the first place. This is not a debatable question. Selection quite literally can’t work by definition and unassailable logic.
Organisms do 100% of the work of evolution, with zero percent being rightly credited to Darwin’s vapid word “selecting it”. If I make money at work today, do I owe my neighbor half my paycheck because he didn’t stop me? After all, he “selected” my work by not blocking my car in this morning, right? If a runner wins a race, is it because of her speed, conditioning and strategic pace or is it because the race “selected” her?
One reason Darwin failed so badly is that he misunderstood what breeders had known for centuries: You can select anything that exists, but you can’t select anything that doesn’t already exist. For example, if you want a one ton Holstein, you can’t have one. The maximum size their genome allows is about 1800 pounds. If you could kill all but the two largest 1800 pound Holsteins, their offspring would range in size from about 1500 to 1800 pounds, with an occasional runt. If you expected something larger, what would have caused the genome change? Your chances of an upgrade are worse, because the population is smaller so there is less chance of a beneficial mutation.
Breeders are happy with the 1500 to 1800 pound range, and have done their job, but Darwinians think killing all those cows will give them a 1900 pound Holstein somehow. Yet supposedly the 1900 pounder wouldn’t have been born without the killing of others for some reason. No part of using selection as a cause of upgrades makes any sense.
So does any aspect of selection make any sense? Sure.. the death part does, just not the improvement part. If someone is born with a congenital heart disease and dies young, that could be said to be “selection” as if that word is helpful in understanding that dysfunction causes death. Again, being “selected against” is death, which DOES happen, but death isn’t evolving functional upgrades. It isn’t hard to understand why some creatures die. How they adapt is the big question.
The only other “use” of selection is as an excuse for lacking evidence of randomness, which Darwin claimed exists, even though he never demonstrated his alleged multitudes of misfits. At least this usage of the word selection is logical, but having an excuse for lacking evidence is a poor substitute for actually having evidence.
Sorry to rail on so long against Darwin’s worst fallacy, but it stupid beyond measure to say anything is “the product of” selection, when that is not even logically possible. One thing we KNOW about the entire biosphere is that no part of it was caused by selection. That much is certain beyond question.
Darwin also thought that offspring had traits that were the blend of their two parents. Granted, he didn’t know about genetics, but he could have listened to Gregor Mendel instead of ignoring him or he could have done an experiment or two and observed the results. The fact is, Darwin WAS wrong about this.
BE SMART.........^_^
....❤
➡️Darwin stated that the organic evolution is due to interspecific competition. it is the competition between members of different species. ... Closely species compete cannot cause evolution. Reduced feeding efficiency in one species due to the presence of interfering species is due to strugle for existance.
❤Follow RudeGirl❤