I ran across this article in AOL news called “Was Darwin Wrong? Study says living space is key to evolution”.
I think it is silly for these people to be claiming that competition was not important for changes, in one fashion or another. It was
not against his theory that when animals move into a new region that they would
be likely to evolve depending on what would be favorable. This was brought up
here in there in “origins of species”. If they move somewhere with lots of food
and little threats or other predatory competition, they would pretty much take
over, but there would still be tons of competition on both sides of the hunt. The
fittest prey would still be the ones to have a better chance to reproduce. And
if not, then the food sources would become rare, which would create
competition, or die off completely, and that isn’t good for any predator. Overall
I don’t see a real argument on how millions of species arrived here without competition
or other factors pressuring change, and mainly on openings in environmental
roles. As I see that it could promote a new variety or animal, competition
would still play a vital role.
Maybe I am missing the big picture of what they are trying to say, if someone really understands how this "living space" is a strong driver for evolution without competition, please explain.
Either way, the best part is that with the article, they have a creationist video to go along with it… which is kinds counter productive
to the article itself, since it says that evolution is impossible… lol. I just
thought that was funny.