It simply doesn't matter what words you use. Words are just going to be interpreted differently by every reader anyway. "Only the fit survive" is no more or no less nonsensical than "species evolve because individual which are less adaptable are less likely to reproduce". The first statement in no more right or wrong than the second because they are equally false.
This makes no sense at all and one has to wonder how you can say such a thing without blinking.
It's so simple....
Consider 2 individuals of the same predator species that compete over limited resources.
One is a faster / better runner then the other.
Which one will be more likely to catch his prey?
Which one then, will be more likely to be well-fed?
Which one then, will be more likely to live and reproduce?
It's not rocket science.
Species do not evolve through any means at all; they change.
This is an epic facepalm moment..............
Evolution =
change over time
And all change is sudden like a volcano rather than plate movement.
No. As every single evolutionary experiment and agricultural program in the history of mankind has shown, change is gradual. Change accumulates over generations, step by step.
This is the case in slow evolution in times of environmental stability and it is also the case in "rapid" evolution in times of environmental instability (punctuated equilibrium). The "rapid" is not "rapid" as in overnight. It is "rapid" in terms of geological time.
The "cambrian explosion", which creationists like to cite as "evidence against evolution" because it is said that evolutionary change was "sudden" or "rapid", still spanned a time period of
50 million years.
Rapid in the great scheme of a 3.8 billion year history of life. Not exactly "rapid" in the sense that it happened in a handful of generations, because it didn't. Not even by a long shot.
I've cited extensive evidence and logic over the years to support this
All you did, was expose your ignorance on the theory you are religiously motivated to argue against.
You have no evidence for "evolution" because all of the evidence supports my theory.
This is delusional, rooted in a deep ignorance on what evolution really is all about and how it really works.
Every comment you make on the topic, contains evidence that you don't even understand the very basics.
This doesn't prove you are wrong, merely that the "theory" of evolution" is a belief.
And your use of quotes here, hints that your ignorance isn't limited to biology alone, but extends to all of science and how science is done.
In science, a theory is not "merely" some theory. It is TRIUMPHANTLY a theory. A theory is the highest possible rating an idea in science can get. It's the graduation stage of a hypothesis.
I literally believe the belief in "guided species change" makes more sense than "evolution".
You can believe whatever you want. You can also believe the world and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, was created just 5 minutes ago.
Beliefs are a dime a dozen. What matters is what you can support with evidence. But before you can support your idea with evidence (or disprove it), you are going to have to define your idea in
testable, verifiable and falsifiable ways.
You have not yet done so.
So please, tell us all how your idea of "guided evolution" can be tested and potentially falsified.
I suppose we can agree a great deal of change in species is the result of sudden mutations.
Genetic change is the result of mutations, yes. Not sure what you mean by "sudden" though. That's pretty meaningless wording in this context, it seems to me.
I doubt we'll agree on the cause of these mutations. You believe in random chance whereas I rarely do.
Mutations are caused by a variety of things.
Your second sentence once again exposes your ignorance on the topic.
The randomness concerns random
with respect to fitness. It has nothing to do with the causes of mutations.
Do you claim that mutation is NOT random with respect to fitness? Then how do you explain harmful mutations?
Or do you claim that
some mutations are not random with respect to fitness?
If yes, then please mention examples of such mutations and present your evidence concerning how they aren't random to fitness