Quote
Because the rate at which offspring are produced in every species is greater than the rate at which the environment can provide food, shelter, and other needs, individuals who carry advantageous traits will come to outnumber those without them, causing a shift in the common characteristics of the species over time. This is part of the definition of natural selection.

All species have adaptations that help them to survive in their environments. These would have appeared due to natural selection, because they conferred a survival advantage. They might even include, for some species, ways of limiting reproduction rates when resources are scarce. The factors above tend to limit population growth; but unless a species is populating a new ecological niche and there's plenty of room in which to grow and spread, then there will always be population pressure. If this wasn't the case then natural selection would not occur, and we would not see evidence of species having evolved over millions of years to become more adapted to their environments.

I'm not sure what the confusion is here. Surely an example of human settlements overpopulating an area, outstripping the resources, and then facing disaster, as appears to have been the case on Easter Island with the statue-builders, would be enough to illustrate the point.
No confusion on my part. As my link in post #252766 indicates, there are more observations than one can shake a stick at which demonstrate how incorrect the view you've chosen to share with Darwin actually is.

In nature, populations are self-regulating. They don't press the resource limits of the environment. Thus they lack the pressure Darwin said was required for natural selection to be effective.

Exceptions are found, but they're vanishingly scarce and almost always involve abrupt isolation on islands, crises where the mechanisms are too slow. I hope you're not going to call all these scientists "liars" for reporting this. Is there any scientific basis for dismissing these discoveries?

I'm thinking you'd like to focus on the exceptions, and claim more research is needed or something. But I'd like to ask a different question: for the apparent majority of lifeforms which do regulate their own numbers, how can natural selection "work" on them? Darwin thought it would be unable to work without intense competition.
Quote
It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Last paragraph, Origin of Species, Sixth Edition. (emphasis added) "Find"ing for "struggle" within his books yields a great deal of results, all of which consistently maintain it's essential in order for natural selection to occur. Both this point, and on the observations which demonstrate Darwin's error, time and patience are the major limiting factors on how many links I could provide. No shortage exists.

The problem for evolutionists is that self-regulated populations don't get dense enough to result in the kill-off of the "unfit". Without overpopulation, there's no resultant struggle, and if the "unfit" survive right along side the "fittest". So much for evolving...

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson