In nature, the fittest don't always survive long enough; they often die. Yes, the weakest or most vulnerable die more often, but they aren't necessarily the least fit. A wounded animal, the favorite prey of an average predator, isn't always the least fit, but rather has met an unfavorable fate.

Being a baby animal doesn't mean being less genetically fit, but rather being in a vulnerable situation. Many predators prefer babys.

Natural selection as proposed by Darwinism does not exist.

In reality, there are simply species designed to proliferate in the environment. No terrestrial organism actually survives; they all die.

Species (individual organisms of each species) are not designed to survive in the environment, but rather to reproduce.

This is a natural reality, as is the fact that acquired traits exist, but are probably not inherited. Thus, changes between biological organisms exist (you could call it evolution), but they do not give rise to species.

Edited June 19Jun 19 by Wigberto

Have you actually read 'On the Origin of Species' ?

Darwin didn't actually coin the phrase 'survival of the fittest'

Spencer did in 1864.

In any event, the situation is vastly more comploicated than the one sided view you have presented.

Sticking with 'survival...' this refers to changes in the environment and an organisms response/reaction to it not necessarily the environment itself.

This make a huge difference and, for instance, accounts for how and why mammals outsurvived dinosaurs following Chixelub.

41 minutes ago, Wigberto said:

Natural selection as proposed by Darwinism does not exist.

I think you have a very confused idea of what these concepts are.

Natural selection is simply the environment selecting traits, we have done this historically with crops, livestock and domestic dogs.

Evolution is a fact, the Theory of Evolution explains those facts and natural selection is part of the process.

Just now, pinball1970 said:

I think you have a very confused idea of what these concepts are.

Natural selection is simply the environment selecting traits, we have done this historically with crops, livestock and domestic dogs.

Evolution is a fact, the Theory of Evolution explains those facts and natural selection is part of the process.

Good summary +1

1983 called. They want their OP back

34 minutes ago, studiot said:

Have you actually read 'On the Origin of Species' ?

Darwin didn't actually coin the phrase 'survival of the fittest'

Spencer did in 1864.

In any event, the situation is vastly more comploicated than the one sided view you have presented.

Sticking with 'survival...' this refers to changes in the environment and an organisms response/reaction to it not necessarily the environment itself.

This make a huge difference and, for instance, accounts for how and why mammals outsurvived dinosaurs following Chixelub.

Oh please, don't play with words. And please don't pretend that you don't know what people talk about. It doesn't matter that "In any event, the situation is vastly more comploicated than the one sided view you have presented." Survival of the fittest and natural selection are crutches of the theory of evolution. Likewise it doesn't matter that there is no definition of intelligence, artificial "intelligence" is out there.

And let's ask scientists about the definition of man, in your case human/human being. "featherless biped"?? Robot is also featherless biped. So funny. And i think that machine really is an evolutionary stage of a human being. Who cares about biology? I think that "quantum biology" will cope with this.

There are already so many theories about space and time and consciousness, and new theories on physics. And it doesn't matter that you don't agree with them, they are in people's heads. People are now left to their own in these questions and definitions. And there is no ground anymore, unfortunately.

15 minutes ago, m_m said:

And let's ask scientists about the definition of man

Carl Linnaeus did that in the 18th century completely independent of the Theory of Evolution, obviously.

3 hours ago, Wigberto said:

n nature, the fittest don't always survive long enough; they often die. Yes, the weakest or most vulnerable die more often,

And that's the ball-game.

Just a suggestion ...

If you don't understand Evolution and how its processes work, ask questions; don't make absurd proclamations and put your ignorance of the subject on display for everyone to see.
( looking at you Wigberto and m_m )

to some extent you are right to point out that survival in nature is not always about being the strongest or “fittest” in the everyday sense. Many factors, including chance, injury, or being young and vulnerable, affect whether an individual lives or dies. Fitness in biology is really about how well an organism passes on its genes to the next generation, not just how long it lives or how tough it seems.

It’s also true that no individual organism lives forever. What evolution cares about is the ability of a species, or more precisely, populations within a species to reproduce and pass on traits. So, survival isn’t the end goal by itself; it’s reproduction that matters.

Regarding acquired traits, modern science shows that most changes an organism gains during its life (like muscle growth or injuries) are generally not inherited by offspring because they don’t change the genetic code in reproductive cells. Though there are some exceptions involving epigenetics, these don’t replace the role of DNA changes in evolution.

Evolution happens over many generations through small changes in populations. These changes can accumulate and lead to new species forming over time. So while individuals don’t evolve, populations do, through processes like natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift.

5 hours ago, m_m said:

Oh please, don't play with words. And please don't pretend that you don't know what people talk about. It doesn't matter that "In any event, the situation is vastly more comploicated than the one sided view you have presented." Survival of the fittest and natural selection are crutches of the theory of evolution. Likewise it doesn't matter that there is no definition of intelligence, artificial "intelligence" is out there.

And let's ask scientists about the definition of man, in your case human/human being. "featherless biped"?? Robot is also featherless biped. So funny. And i think that machine really is an evolutionary stage of a human being. Who cares about biology? I think that "quantum biology" will cope with this.

There are already so many theories about space and time and consciousness, and new theories on physics. And it doesn't matter that you don't agree with them, they are in people's heads. People are now left to their own in these questions and definitions. And there is no ground anymore, unfortunately.

Dude this doesn’t answer the question at all or help them understand, it’s just snarkiness. Calm down for gods sake.

6 hours ago, Wigberto said:

This is a natural reality, as is the fact that acquired traits exist, but are probably not inherited. Thus, changes between biological organisms exist (you could call it evolution), but they do not give rise to species.

You don’t seem to understand this well so I will ask you a question simply, after the KPG asteroid what type of anomaly rose to ecological dominance?

Animal not Anomaly apologies

6 hours ago, Wigberto said:

In nature, the fittest don't always survive long enough; they often die. Yes, the weakest or most vulnerable die more often, but they aren't necessarily the least fit. A wounded animal, the favorite prey of an average predator, isn't always the least fit, but rather has met an unfavorable fate.

Some fundamental errors: “survival of the fittest” is a generalization, i.e. it’s in the context of probabilities, evolution happens with populations, and a key element is reproduction.

I second the call for asking questions rather than making proclamations; IOW you can’t declare things about evolution if you don’t understand it.

Given the initial trajectory, I have to insist that any further claims be backed with citations, rather than making bald assertions - tell us what a reputable source says.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

to some extent you are right to point out that survival in nature is not always about being the strongest or “fittest” in the everyday sense. Many factors, including chance, injury, or being young and vulnerable, affect whether an individual lives or dies. Fitness in biology is really about how well an organism passes on its genes to the next generation, not just how long it lives or how tough it seems.

Or to put it simply, one shouldn't confuse fitness in the common use with the highly specific meaning with respect to evolution (i.e. reproductive success).

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Evolution happens over many generations through small changes in populations. These changes can accumulate and lead to new species forming over time. So while individuals don’t evolve, populations do, through processes like natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift.

Evolution really doesn't refer to speciation, though speciation is one possible consequence of evolutionary actions. In the most specific sense, evolution refers to a change in the gene pool over time, which can happen rather rapidly. Drift and strong selection could cause such big changes, especially in small population. A more technical way to look at is that evolution happens whenever Hardy-Weinberg conditions are not met.

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Or to put it simply, one shouldn't confuse fitness in the common use with the highly specific meaning with respect to evolution (i.e. reproductive success).

Evolution really doesn't refer to speciation, though speciation is one possible consequence of evolutionary actions. In the most specific sense, evolution refers to a change in the gene pool over time, which can happen rather rapidly. Drift and strong selection could cause such big changes, especially in small population. A more technical way to look at is that evolution happens whenever Hardy-Weinberg conditions are not met.

I appreciate your clarification about evolution not being synonymous with speciation. I used to think evolution always meant the formation of new species, but I’ve come to understand that evolution, at its core, is any change in allele frequencies within a population over time. Speciation is just one potential outcome of that process, not the definition itself

16 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

to some extent you are right to point out that survival in nature is not always about being the strongest or “fittest” in the everyday sense. Many factors, including chance, injury, or being young and vulnerable, affect whether an individual lives or dies. Fitness in biology is really about how well an organism passes on its genes to the next generation, not just how long it lives or how tough it seems.

It’s also true that no individual organism lives forever. What evolution cares about is the ability of a species, or more precisely, populations within a species to reproduce and pass on traits. So, survival isn’t the end goal by itself; it’s reproduction that matters.

Regarding acquired traits, modern science shows that most changes an organism gains during its life (like muscle growth or injuries) are generally not inherited by offspring because they don’t change the genetic code in reproductive cells. Though there are some exceptions involving epigenetics, these don’t replace the role of DNA changes in evolution.

Evolution happens over many generations through small changes in populations. These changes can accumulate and lead to new species forming over time. So while individuals don’t evolve, populations do, through processes like natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift.

Dude this doesn’t answer the question at all or help them understand, it’s just snarkiness. Calm down for gods sake.

You don’t seem to understand this well so I will ask you a question simply, after the KPG asteroid what type of anomaly rose to ecological dominance?

Animal not Anomaly apologies

You generally address the issue, but we disagree on the understanding of the fossil record. For me, the fossil record is incomplete evidence, filled with assumptions rather than facts. You assume geological periods; however, you cannot deny that these assumptions are based on radiometric dating and biased assumptions such as faunal succession (which does not always meet the desired expectations). A quick example: Darwin himself recognized the diversity of species that can inhabit one habitat relative to another (the Galapagos and Australia would be examples). Why think that fossil organisms predate other species, rather than thinking that they are different organisms from different habitats, like those of the Galapagos?

It's also a hypothesis that a meteorite caused a mass (global) extinction at some point. There isn't enough evidence to confirm this, but there seems to be enough to speculate about it.

What I want to clarify is that there is no evidence of the origin of species through evolution, and since this is clearly not observed today, nor throughout history, their last resort is to entrench themselves in the fossil record and give it the interpretations that best fit their claims. This isn't evidence in itself, just a sketch of a suspect; this is suspicion.

So, you understand, I can't tell you what species dominated the Earth after the dinosaurs, because I doubt that dinosaurs preceded other current species (such as echidnas, mosquitoes, cockroaches, coelacanths, etc.), and I also question whether, in fact, there was any dominance of dinosaurs (or chickens) on the planet.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Some fundamental errors: “survival of the fittest” is a generalization, i.e. it’s in the context of probabilities, evolution happens with populations, and a key element is reproduction.

I second the call for asking questions rather than making proclamations; IOW you can’t declare things about evolution if you don’t understand it.

Given the initial trajectory, I have to insist that any further claims be backed with citations, rather than making bald assertions - tell us what a reputable source says.

An individual who dies before it can reproduce cannot reproduce; the theory of evolution depends on survival. I have said that species depend on reproduction, not individual survival. If selfish genes truly prevailed in nature, it would logically follow that there would be no organisms whose existence is focused on reproduction, but rather more like cancer, which tries to survive at all costs. In nature, the healthiest individuals often advance in the group and are the first to die because they are at greater risk. The weak and naturally sick individuals who lag behind, then, have a chance of surviving and reproducing.

Just now, Wigberto said:

You generally address the issue, but we disagree on the understanding of the fossil record. For me, the fossil record is incomplete evidence, filled with assumptions rather than facts. You assume geological periods; however, you cannot deny that these assumptions are based on radiometric dating and biased assumptions such as faunal succession (which does not always meet the desired expectations). A quick example: Darwin himself recognized the diversity of species that can inhabit one habitat relative to another (the Galapagos and Australia would be examples). Why think that fossil organisms predate other species, rather than thinking that they are different organisms from different habitats, like those of the Galapagos?

Are these serious questions in the quest for information or are you just extrapolating from ignorance ?

I most certainly deny that geological periods are based on radiometric dating and I further challenge you to reference a single instance of radiometric dating by Darwin.

If you are really interested the key piece of geology here is the startling difference between the flora and fauna of Bali and Lombok, divided by only a few miles but also the wallace line.
No one could explain this before plate techtonics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line

The line runs through Indonesia, such as Makassar Strait between Borneo and Sulawesi (Celebes), and through the Lombok Strait between Bali and Lombok, where the distance is strikingly small, only about 35 kilometers (22 mi), but enough for a contrast in species present on each island.

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

Or to put it simply, one shouldn't confuse fitness in the common use with the highly specific meaning with respect to evolution (i.e. reproductive success).

Evolution really doesn't refer to speciation, though speciation is one possible consequence of evolutionary actions. In the most specific sense, evolution refers to a change in the gene pool over time, which can happen rather rapidly. Drift and strong selection could cause such big changes, especially in small population. A more technical way to look at is that evolution happens whenever Hardy-Weinberg conditions are not met.

I believe that humans in the past were aware of the changes that occur in organisms (within species boundaries). What was novel, not for Darwin, was proposing the origin of species beyond those boundaries (the jump from one species to another). What Charles Darwin proposed was a natural war for survival, where some die (or become extinct) and others survive.

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Are these serious questions in the quest for information or are you just extrapolating from ignorance ?

I most certainly deny that geological periods are based on radiometric dating and I further challenge you to reference a single instance of radiometric dating by Darwin.

If you are really interested the key piece of geology here is the startling difference between the flora and fauna of Bali and Lombok, divided by only a few miles but also the wallace line.
No one could explain this before plate techtonics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line

In Darwin's time, radiometric dating (uranium-lead, potassium-argon, etc.) did not exist, nor had genetics been developed as it is today. In Darwin's time, a fossil record existed, and the assumption of faunal succession proposed by geologist William Smith could be made.

Just now, Wigberto said:

In Darwin's time, radiometric dating (uranium-lead, potassium-argon, etc.) did not exist, nor had genetics been developed as it is today.

So why did you imply otherwise ?

Just now, studiot said:

So why did you imply otherwise ?

It seems to me you were simply assuming I was implying something else. I don't think I was implying that Darwin used radiometry, which followers of Darwin's doctrine do use to try to validate his postulates.

Just now, Wigberto said:

It seems to me you were simply assuming I was implying something else. I don't think I was implying that Darwin used radiometry, which followers of Darwin's doctrine do use to try to validate his postulates.

I wasn't assuming anything except that your English was ill thought out and led me to assess your words incorrectly.

"You cannot deny etc" followed immediately by "A quick example, Darwin etc" as the next sentence in the same paragraph would mean that Darwin provided the example of the previous sentence.

Do you wish to answer my question ?

1 hour ago, Wigberto said:

You generally address the issue, but we disagree on the understanding of the fossil record. For me, the fossil record is incomplete evidence, filled with assumptions rather than facts. You assume geological periods; however, you cannot deny that these assumptions are based on radiometric dating and biased assumptions such as faunal succession (which does not always meet the desired expectations). A quick example: Darwin himself recognized the diversity of species that can inhabit one habitat relative to another (the Galapagos and Australia would be examples). Why think that fossil organisms predate other species, rather than thinking that they are different organisms from different habitats, like those of the Galapagos?

It's also a hypothesis that a meteorite caused a mass (global) extinction at some point. There isn't enough evidence to confirm this, but there seems to be enough to speculate about it.

What I want to clarify is that there is no evidence of the origin of species through evolution, and since this is clearly not observed today, nor throughout history, their last resort is to entrench themselves in the fossil record and give it the interpretations that best fit their claims. This isn't evidence in itself, just a sketch of a suspect; this is suspicion.

So, you understand, I can't tell you what species dominated the Earth after the dinosaurs, because I doubt that dinosaurs preceded other current species (such as echidnas, mosquitoes, cockroaches, coelacanths, etc.), and I also question whether, in fact, there was any dominance of dinosaurs (or chickens) on the planet.

The incompleteness of the fossil record is acknowledged in every paleontology textbook. That is why scientists use many methods to cross-check the fossils. These include stratigraphy, radiometric dating, molecular clocks, and comparative anatomy. None of these stand alone, and none of them rely on belief or assumption. They are grounded in physics, chemistry, and biology and are all testable and falsifiable. You do not get to hand-wave them away by pretending they are just "interpretations."

Radiometric dating, which you seem to distrust, is one of the most rigorously tested tools in geology and paleontology. The decay rates of isotopes like uranium two thirty eight and potassium forty are not estimated. They are measured and have been repeatedly confirmed in the lab. These decay rates are unaffected by temperature, pressure, chemical environment, or anything else that would make them unreliable. They act as atomic clocks and are trusted by physicists, chemists, and geologists alike.

When scientists date rocks, they do not just look at one isotope. They check several systems that decay at different rates. When they all converge on the same date, you have confidence. This is called concordia dating, and it works. We can date moon rocks, meteorites, Earth rocks, and volcanic ash layers with this method. And it works the same everywhere. The reliability is not up for debate. It is experimental fact.

Now let us look at faunal succession, which you called a biased assumption. Actually, it is an observed regularity in the stratigraphic column. We find trilobites below dinosaurs, and we find dinosaurs below mammals. Always. Everywhere. You can look across continents, and the pattern holds. This is not something scientists invented because it fits a theory. The theory arose because the pattern was observed. It is inductive reasoning.

You bring up Darwin and habitat diversity. Yes, Darwin noted that islands and continents with similar climates had different species. But that is not an argument against evolution or the fossil record. It is a key insight that helped him understand descent with modification. The Galapagos finches are not examples of separate creation. They are textbook cases of adaptive radiation, where a common ancestor diversified into multiple species to fill different ecological niches.

The same logic applies when comparing ancient fossils. A Triassic archosaur and a Jurassic theropod are not simply animals from two different habitats. They are clearly related in form, limb structure, pelvis shape, and dentition. They follow a progression through time that is backed up by both the fossil record and molecular data. There is no case in the fossil record where modern elephants are found in Cambrian rocks or where whales are found with Permian amphibians. If the fossil record were just habitat-based differences, we would expect complete chaos. But we do not find chaos. We find order.

Let us talk about speciation. You claim there is no evidence for the origin of species through evolution. That is simply incorrect. Speciation has been observed directly, both in the lab and in the field. Cichlid fish in African lakes have split into dozens of species in a few thousand years. Fruit flies have formed new reproductively isolated populations in laboratory settings. Even in vertebrates, like the apple maggot fly, we have seen populations diverging into distinct forms that no longer interbreed. This is speciation.

But yes, macroevolution takes time. You cannot expect to see an elephant evolve from a shrew in one lifetime. That is not how gradual accumulation of change works. Evolution is not about instant transformations. It is about small genetic changes accumulating over millions of years. The fossil record gives us snapshots of these stages. For example, we have step-by-step transitions from early horses to modern ones, from jawed fish to tetrapods, from early whales to modern cetaceans.

On the topic of the asteroid, it is not just a guess that a meteor ended the Cretaceous. We have a global layer of iridium, which is rare on Earth but common in asteroids. We have a spike in shocked quartz, glassy spherules, and soot that matches a global firestorm. And we have the Chicxulub crater in Mexico, a one hundred eighty kilometer wide impact structure that dates precisely to sixty six million years ago. The data do not suggest an asteroid hit. The data scream it.

The extinction pattern fits the impact hypothesis too. Marine plankton, non avian dinosaurs, flying reptiles, and ammonites disappear right at that boundary. Mammals, birds, and some reptiles survive. This selective extinction is what you would expect from a sudden catastrophic event. And it is not just about dinosaurs. About seventy five percent of species went extinct worldwide. It left a mark in every ecosystem and in every geological record.

You also bring up organisms like cockroaches, coelacanths, and mosquitoes and ask why they are still around if evolution is real. That is a strange question. Evolution is not a ladder. It does not imply that all organisms must change dramatically or go extinct. If a form works well, it can remain stable. Coelacanths live deep in oceans and have few predators and little environmental change. They did not have strong selective pressures to change. They are not unchanged, by the way. Their genes show change. But their basic body plan remains because it still works.

On dominance, your skepticism is misplaced. Dinosaurs dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over one hundred fifty million years. That is not a theory. That is what the fossil record shows. Their bones appear in nearly every Mesozoic terrestrial deposit, in vast numbers and diversity. From the dog-sized Compsognathus to the towering Argentinosaurus, they filled herbivore and carnivore niches. They were not isolated anomalies. They were the core of the ecosystem.

Compare that with today. Mammals dominate land ecosystems. That is not controversial. You would not say mammals are a myth because echidnas and crocodiles still exist. Dominance does not mean every single animal fits the pattern. It means the majority of biomass and ecological roles are filled by that group. Dinosaurs did that in their time.

You suggest that scientists interpret fossils to fit their ideas. That is backward. Scientific interpretations change as new data appear. Archaeopteryx was discovered after Darwin proposed evolution. It had feathers and teeth and a long bony tail. It changed the understanding of birds. Tiktaalik was predicted to exist in a specific rock layer, and was found exactly there. It is a transitional form between fish and tetrapods. These are not retrofitted interpretations. These are testable predictions fulfilled by evidence.

Also, you say evolution is not directly observed. That is simply false. We observe bacterial evolution all the time. Resistance to antibiotics evolves in real time. We see influenza evolve so rapidly that we need new vaccines every year. Evolution is not stuck in the past. It is happening now. It is observed in genetics, in morphology, and in ecological studies. It is one of the most testable and confirmed theories in all of science.

The claim that we only "retreat to the fossil record" is a gross misrepresentation. Evolutionary biology rests on multiple lines of evidence. Paleontology is just one of them. Others include embryology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and molecular genetics. The patterns are consistent across all these fields. For example, the gene sequences of humans and chimpanzees are over ninety eight percent identical. Our chromosomes match nearly one for one, including the fused chromosome two.

The origin of species has not only been inferred. It has been documented in ring species, in laboratory studies, in natural experiments, and in comparative genomics. It is not a last resort. It is the main course. If you want to believe otherwise, you are free to do so. But you are not challenging a few weak guesses. You are taking a swing at one hundred sixty years of cumulative research supported by hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed studies.

Science is not built on suspicion. It is built on evidence. You can be skeptical all you want, but if you want to reject radiometric dating, the fossil record, biogeography, genetics, and observed speciation, then you are not just disagreeing with evolution. You are disagreeing with physics, chemistry, biology, and geology. That is a tall hill to climb.

You do not have to believe the Earth is ancient or that life evolved. But if you are going to reject all that, you better have a system that can explain everything science already explains, and more. Because evolution explains why your arms and a bird’s wings share the same bones. It explains why embryos of mammals, reptiles, and birds all start off with pharyngeal arches and tails. It explains why marsupials dominate in Australia but not in Africa or Eurasia. It explains patterns in nature that are otherwise inexplicable.

So yes, I can tell you which species dominated after the dinosaurs. Mammals did. Especially placental mammals. They radiated into new niches, leading to ungulates, primates, bats, whales, and eventually humans. That is not a wild guess. That is observable in the fossil record, in the molecular clock, and in comparative anatomy.

The burden is not on scientists to stop using evidence. The burden is on critics to present better explanations. So far, I have seen a lot of doubt but not a single alternative model that explains the same phenomena with greater accuracy or predictive power. That is the real difference between science and suspicion. Science works. Doubt just stalls.

1 hour ago, Wigberto said:

It's also a hypothesis that a meteorite caused a mass (global) extinction at some point. There isn't enough evidence to confirm this, but there seems to be enough to speculate about it.

It isn’t “some meteorite” like the smaller ones that often crash into the earths atmosphere, it was 6 damn miles long. There is a ton of evidence to confirm this including the impact site itself in the Chixclub impact site. Also, during the Cretaceous biological diversity was extremely high, within the fossil record it is seen as ending abruptly. Biodiversity as a whole was not under threat as seen during the Permian or Triassic, it ending spontaneously suddenly by external factors is a way more probable explanation that it being gradually. Instead of attacking paleontologists with no evidence, gather some form of evidence to stimulate discussion.

1 hour ago, Wigberto said:

You generally address the issue, but we disagree on the understanding of the fossil record. For me, the fossil record is incomplete evidence, filled with assumptions rather than facts. You assume geological periods; however, you cannot deny that these assumptions are based on radiometric dating and biased assumptions such as faunal succession (which does not always meet the desired expectations). A quick example: Darwin himself recognized the diversity of species that can inhabit one habitat relative to another (the Galapagos and Australia would be examples). Why think that fossil organisms predate other species, rather than thinking that they are different organisms from different habitats, like those of the Galapagos?

It's also a hypothesis that a meteorite caused a mass (global) extinction at some point. There isn't enough evidence to confirm this, but there seems to be enough to speculate about it.

What I want to clarify is that there is no evidence of the origin of species through evolution, and since this is clearly not observed today, nor throughout history, their last resort is to entrench themselves in the fossil record and give it the interpretations that best fit their claims. This isn't evidence in itself, just a sketch of a suspect; this is suspicion.

So, you understand, I can't tell you what species dominated the Earth after the dinosaurs, because I doubt that dinosaurs preceded other current species (such as echidnas, mosquitoes, cockroaches, coelacanths, etc.), and I also question whether, in fact, there was any dominance of dinosaurs (or chickens) on the planet.

An individual who dies before it can reproduce cannot reproduce; the theory of evolution depends on survival. I have said that species depend on reproduction, not individual survival. If selfish genes truly prevailed in nature, it would logically follow that there would be no organisms whose existence is focused on reproduction, but rather more like cancer, which tries to survive at all costs. In nature, the healthiest individuals often advance in the group and are the first to die because they are at greater risk. The weak and naturally sick individuals who lag behind, then, have a chance of surviving and reproducing.

The fossil record provides a series of data points that suggest evolutionary trends. This is no different in principle from the data points you get from a series of measurements in an experiment in chemistry or physics. In both cases you have data points that appear to show a trend and you join the dots.

In the case of evolution, we have confirmation of the principle at wrk in real time, when we observe the development of drug resistance in bacteria or cancers.

So we most certainly do have evidence for evolution in response to environmental pressures

14 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The burden is not on scientists to stop using evidence. The burden is on critics to present better explanations. So far, I have seen a lot of doubt but not a single alternative model that explains the same phenomena with greater accuracy or predictive power. That is the real difference between science and suspicion. Science works. Doubt just stalls.

+1

Some nice info there.

4 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

+1

Some nice info there.

<3 I love this type of science

1 hour ago, Wigberto said:

I believe that humans in the past were aware of the changes that occur in organisms (within species boundaries).

Why within species boundaries? Species are a human invention convenient for categorization and study. An evolving population will not care if its morphology is no longer fitting in with our taxonomic nomenclature.

Why would a population stop evolving if the environment continued to pressure it to do so?

1 hour ago, Wigberto said:

A quick example: Darwin himself recognized the diversity of species that can inhabit one habitat relative to another (the Galapagos and Australia would be examples). Why think that fossil organisms predate other species, rather than thinking that they are different organisms from different habitats, like those of the Galapagos?

Look at the Wallace line, the environment on both sides is relatively tropical. HOWEVER, they present vastly differing fauna