How do we know that natural selection was the cause of evolution in the fossil record?
We don’t. We know that selection was NOT the cause of evolution in the fossil record because it can't possibly cause evolution.We can’t even determine selection as a cause of evolution in direct observation.Selection is a result, not a cause. If an organism dies without reproducing, it was “selected against” they say, but dying is not a part of evolution. If the organism does live and reproduce, then Darwinians will apply the term “selected” to the surviving organism, but it is just an empty word that did nothing at all helpful to the organism nor was there something there that actually did anything.The very best selection can “do” is to not kill, which is the passive state of doing nothing at all. Selection is sheer stupidity of no use to science.There are some amazing things going on internally in an organism if Darwinists ever want to join the world of science and take a look.
How does natural selection cause evolution to occur?
All species have great potential of fertility that their population size would increase exponentially if all individuals that were born successfully in accordance to environment. Most populations are stable in size. except for seasonal fluctuations. Natural resources when limited, the production of more individuals than the reasources can lead to a struggle for existence among individuals of population, with only a fraction of offspring surviving each generation. Much variations are created and this is inheritable. Those individuals whose inherited charactersfit the environment leave more offsprings than the less fit and this leads to speciation and thus resulting evolution.
Natural selection causes...?
Yes, C is correct. The environment selects for or against specific alleles (traits). If the trait is selected for, it increases an organisms chance to survive and reproduce. This will increase (change) the frequency of the characteristic (allele) in the population. Also, natural selection is better described as differential reproductive success rather than survival of the fittest (survival is only part of it, successful reproduction is also necessary).
How is natural selection related to evolution?
Evolution just means "change over time." If you have ever been to a natural history museum, you will have seen a sequence of fossils showing the change over millions of years, for example, in humans, birds, whales, or any other species.Natural selection is the process through which this change occurs. It is the driving force of evolution. All organisms are born with small variation (mutations). But nature selects which ones get to reproduce (mainly by killing all the others).It's a beautifully simple process. If an organism's random variation helps it survive (by finding food and not becoming it) and find a mate, those genes will be statistically favoured and will spread through the population over the generations, helping its descendents do the same. Natural selection is a powerful constructive force because the environment acts as a filter, persistently selecting those minute variations in one direction. For example, if the climate changes and it becomes colder, those incapable of dealing with the lower temperatures will die and not get a chance to reproduce. Any change, in any gene, that results in a trait that has even a tiny statistical advantage will be favoured. Repeat this millions and millions of times in a population and over many many generations you will see the organisms adapt to the new climate. And when populations are split and adapt to different environments, you get new species forming.This is evolution by natural selection.
What causes natural selection in animals?
It isn’t natural selection in animals, it’s natural selection in gene pools of animals. It’s the gene pool of animals that evolves as a group. They evolve—change—because out of the range of traits that appear in the different individuals of the group, if certain traits result in more animals with those traits appearing in successive generations of that gene pool—that is, if those traits enjoy reproductive success—not just reproducing but animals with those traits growing up and reproducing—then this population will come to display whatever that trait is.Take the Namib desert beetle. The ones on the coast are white; the ones inland are black. Same species, so far, but different gene pools that have become different races of Namib desert beetle. White works best for the coastal race because it’s cool enough there for them to be active through the middle of the day, and white rejects heat better.The inland ones are black because it’s too hot mid-day for them to be out regardless of color (they hide in burrows), and the black color lets their cold-blooded metabolism lets them warm up enough to be active earlier in the day and later in the afternoon.It’s not just that one color or the other was advantageous. It’s that it led to reproductive success for that gene pool. The beetles with the preferable color had more little baby beetles than other colored beetles did. And eventually their trait became nearly universal in that gene pool.That’s natural selction—blind and purposeless—really, just our term for the way natural variations interact with the environment over the generations. Natural selection isn’t a part of nature in and of itself. Variation, reproduction and gene pools are. If there were no variation there would be no natural selection.
Natural selection?
Its most easily defined as survival of the fittest. What it is: The environment and other conditions for life are always changing. Each organism is unique to a certain degree. This means that some organisms may be better suited for certain conditions than other organisms. Natural selection comes in by aiding those organisms who have the advantage in the current living conditions. They are better at surviving and therefore they are more likely to survive to reproduce. Those traits that made them better at surviving to reproduction are what gets passed on to the next generation. The ones who are disadvantaged by the living conditions are "naturally selected against" because they are not the best suited to the living conditions. They are less likely to reproduce and the traits they carry are more likely to be removed from the gene pool because they are not likely to continue to further generations. Here is an example I'll make up to help you understand. Say you have a field with mice in it. All the mice are generally the same, but there are a few with minor differences. Some of the mice are slightly better at evading predators. The mice that are better at evading predators are more likely to survive because they are not likely to be prayed upon. Because they are better at surviving they are more likely to be around to mate. The genes they possess will be passed onto their offspring who in turn will be better at evading predators. This evading predator gene is "naturally selected for." The mice who are not good at evading predators are more likely to be prayed upon so they will not be likely to mate. Because they aren’t mating they can not pass on their genes. Their genes are being "naturally selected against." Evolution comes in the picture here. Because the mice who are better at evading predators are living to reproduce and those who are bad at evading predators are not likely to live to reproduce there are more "predator evading" genes in the gene pool. Over time the species of mice evolve to becoming better at evading predators.
How does natural selection operate to cause change in a population?
1) natural selection would favor those that bred best, that is, those that reproduced the most 2) natural selection would favor those that reproduce most and survive best. Weak individuals would eventually die out because not being able to adapt as well to the environment, and thus leave no offspring. 3) natural selection would still favor those the reproduce most and survive best, if the changes are dramatic and none in the original population can survive it in the end, then they will all die out. But that's not how natural selection works: natural selection will take out those that are worst adapted first, then go on to take out more well prepared. The strongest individuals will hopefully be strong enough to survive the changes, and at least some of their offspring even better prepared for future changes. 4) All adapt automatically but the weakest still dies like in the above example, if everyone can not survive. Otherwise if everybody can survive, the "fittest" individual will reproduce more (all will never reproduce equally in most kinds of animals) and thus get more offspring, it's genome will eventually dominate the species.