Evolution: Charles Darwin's 3 inferences?

Question

Darwin 3 inferences.

1) Too many individuals for limited resources

2) Those with better traits survive and reproduce

3) "Better" traits dominate in population and evolve.

I need evidence or observations people in the past have done to show how these 3 inferences have been supported. Thanks!!

Answer 1

Those 3 are not mainstreams of Darwin's theory. I think first one is from Malthus. Darwin's theory of Evolution suggest:

1) Random mutations occur in individuals. (today discovered that they are molecular changes in genes)

2) Some mutations increase adaptation and reproduction of those individuals. (most of the mutations are actually bad)

3) If a mutation helps specie to adapt well and reproduce longer and more, it's off-springs dominate the further generations. (natural selection)

Then when enough good mutations collected in further generations they may become a different specie.

Evidences were abundant in nature. For example slightly different version of same specie occupy near by islands. Darwin explained this as each island's fauna and conditions were slightly different and species adapted in different ways.  Also fossils and remnants of species which do not live today found. And using carbon dating scientists found when those species are elected and slightly different versions are selected by the nature. Today, with genetic science all these changes are known and traced in molecular level. And just by comparing DNA's scientists can identify when and how today's species differentiated in the past.

Answer 2

Try genetics and Biological Psychology ... a good place to start. Theory!

Answer 3

The three points:

-  Over-population

- Natural selection/Survival of the fittest

- Adaptation into „sub-population“

can be observed in wild nature and a great part of it can be observed by selective breeding of domesticated animals. All this is known as micro-evolution. It has to be carefully be distinguished from the theory of macro-evolution, which teaches that one family of species evolved from another one. For the theory of macro-evolution there is a lack of scientific evidence. It’s a model that looses credibility in the light of recent scientific evidence found in the analysis of the human genome. Some years ago there was a term „junk DNA“ for parts of the genome where there was no associated function seen. There was even a claim that 97% of the human genome is identical with those of some animals. Recent scientific work has shed more light to the fact that the human genome is more unique that previously assumed and there are many more functions involved.

Micro-evolution or adaptation or selective breeding on the other hand can be scientifically observed since more than 200 years, such as breeding of dogs and cattle, recombination of extinct species by interbreeding from closely related species from the same family.

There is also scientific work that shows what are the biological families or kind of animals. This is done by interbreeding experiments. If the offspring is alive at birth (or hatching), even when ill adapted to survival, then this is an indicator that the two parent species are from the same „kind“ of earlier common genetic main pool.

Examples: (Wolf, Dog, Fox) or (Swan, Goose, Duck) Here is where the model of selection and adaptation to specialized sub-species works. It is always a reduction of the gene pool. Only some of the information is active in the next generation. There is no scientific proof that accidental mutation in the genetic information could add useful and new information into the genes that would result in a „better“ or „higher“ developed living animal.

Watch out for scientific news in the next few months and years that will enhance my above lines.