Is natural selection scientifically proven to be true?

Is natural selection scientifically proven to be true?

What's the latest on this topic?

>the best fitted for survival survives
Doesn't sound like rocket science for me

But did they ever prove it scientifically?

natural selection isn't really a theory to be proven, it sort of like a concept

On one level, it's a concept almost mathematical in its purity, on another level, it's a falsifiable theory about natural history.

"Proving" things, in the sense you're implying, isn't really how science works.

Science goes forward on the principle of occam's razor: we prefer the simplest theory which is not contradicted by available evidence, and take that as the working theory, then we look for simpler theories, new evidence, and contradictions we failed to notice. Evolution through natural selection is the simplest explanation we have for the observed variety of life, and there hasn't been any clear contradiction to it discovered.

Fucking bronies man

We have this thread some thirty times a week.

>Is natural selection scientifically proven to be true?
Yes.

>What's the latest on this topic?
Pretty much the same as it was a century ago.

A century ago, classical genetics was just in its infancy. So no, you're wrong.

There's been developments since the 1910s. In particular the selection vs drift question, followed by the group selection vs kin selection question around 1960s and onward.

>A century ago, classical genetics was just in its infancy.
Yes, and that meant that some of the details of natural selection where still open questions. The truth of the theory as a whole, however, was not. It was well-understood to be true then and it still is today, so nothing changed on the actual verdict, though the details have received many amendments and improvements.

anagenesis

The question you were answering was "Is natural selection scientifically proven to be true?"

Given that a great deal of the "proof" involves genetic analysis, I'd say we've made considerable progress collecting evidence in favor of the theory of natural selection.

>Given that a great deal of the "proof" involves genetic analysis, I'd say we've made considerable progress collecting evidence in favor of the theory of natural selection.
Yes, indeed. Which means the mountain of evidence that was already stupendously high a century ago has gotten higher and higher still. Even so, it was already WELL high enough to be "scientifically proven" back then.

Natural Selction is more of an etymological question than a scientific one.

Natural is anything that is not artificial (man-made). Since Artificial Seleccion has been practised since prehistoric times (the more productive crops get their seeds cultivated) is only logical to accept it as true.

At least this dog won't be breeding soon.

The more of something emerges, the more of it there will be. The less of something disappears, the more of it there will be. It's much more than scientifically proven, it's determined by math/logic. It doesn't just apply for living things obviously, but for everything. Most things aren't as good at procreating tho

>pretty much the same as it was a century ago
>read: (I have no idea what I'm talking about)
This is what's up
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-47581-3_1
Look at this too
journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fevo.2017.00003/full

It's one evolutionary mechanism, of which there are several.

What did user mean by this?

Are you being serious or are you trolling?

>scientifically proven

No such thing, proof belongs to math, science has evidence and theories. Evolution is an observed fact, natural selection is the best explanation for the mechanism by which it operates, and we have developed many technological applications that rely on this theory, and that seem to be highly effective.