Pardon me, but the example of the urban weeds has nothing to do with population density or food. It was about how they adapted to their environment. I read a lot of news stories and I can't remember where I read this one so unfortunately I can't link to it.

Why is it difficult for you to believe that organisms would respond appropriately to a lack of food? Do you just have a knee-jerk reaction to everything scientists say, or what? Do you not see how a high population density and lack of food would make conditions difficult for animals; do you not think they might have evolved means to adapt accordingly? How is this any different from fish who can burrow into mud and survive when water temporarily dries up?


Until you actually back this up with evidence, I will call it for being part of the silly fantasy in your head. My guess is you have no evidence at all apart from some vague stuff you read on a creationist website.


Most scientists will tell you that mutations happen randomly, and the ones that confer positive benefits are retained through natural selection. The morphic fields idea is a little different, though it is not accepted by the mainstream. Let me know if you need some definitions of terms.


I never would have guessed.