Quote
Quote
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.
So you're saying that God is reaching down his hand when populations get close to resource limits and he slows down reproduction? Why doesn't He do that for mice, or rabbits, or deer or thousands of other populations? Are arctic squirrels His chosen species?

The abstracts that you provided don't say that. In fact, there are indicators that the change in reproduction patterns are linked with resource stress. Less food per individual and other stresses seem to cause hormonal changes that decrease the fertility cycles.

Quote
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?
Yes. Under stressful conditions, human women have been known to be less fertile. This reaction to stress (less food, water, living space) may be higher in other animals such as arctic squirrels.

Quote
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...
Which scientists think this change in reproductive rates is a problem for evolution? What are their conclusions about this "self regulation" effect in regards to species survival and evolution?

Now, before you tell me to do the research (shift burden of proof), remember you're the one who said this "self regulation" of population size is a problem for evolution. So, you need to provide something more than "oh look, I found something that I declare is a problem for evolution...therefore it is!" If it is really a problem, then the scientists should have looked into it far enough to find out. Provide some support for your allegation.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke