Response
We agree that species generally adapt to their environment via natural selection, though within the pre-defined limits in the organism’s genetic code. However, adaption via natural selection is unscientific no matter how it is stated, and therefore, evolution is not a rigorous scientific theory but rather a worldview.
Each method of explaining natural selection is either unscientific or does not mention adaption:
Debate
Evolutionist: Population genetics is natural selection, and it is certainly rigorous science.
Response: Population genetics is not adaption via natural selection, because before you can calculate a scenario with population genetics, you must already know the differential survival of allele pairs. You must assume adaption via natural selection a priori. 2
Site Under Construction
This site is still under construction. It needs more references, citations, and debate arguments. If you would like to help, please view the community page.
Sources
Cotner, S., & Moore, R. (2011). Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood.
ReMine, W. J. (1993). The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory. Saint Paul, Minn.: St. Paul Science.
Notes
- Cotner and Moore, 2011, p. 3: “When most people speak of evolution, they are talking about natural selection, one of the ways that a population can change over time. Unlike other mechanisms for evolution (e.g., mutation, genetic drift, gene flow), natural selection is the only scientifically supported explanation for adaptive change.” ↩
- ReMine, 1993, p. 171 ↩