I am afraid you are mistaken. The coat color of the mice is determined by the environment. Where the color of the sand is black, the color of the mouse is more likely to be black. Where the color of the sand is tan, the color of the mouse is more likely to be tan. Predation is a constant, the color of the sand is the variable, so the color of the sand causes the color of the mouse to change.
“The close match between the color of the mice and the color of the substrate on which they live is thought to be an adaptation against predation” PNAS -29 Apr 03
The quote from the article confirms that the the issue is adaption, NOT conflict or survival of the fittest.
The reason that some bacteria thrived and squeezed out the others is because a particular change enabled them to digest citrate as I said. This is not the result of competition. This is the result of adaption.
I was wrong about winners and losers, because I was thinking that this was sexual reproduction that commonly spreads adaptions through the species, instead of asexual reproduction where this cannot happen.
I admitted that I made a mistake concerning winning and losing in this case. Please admit you were wrong about competition /survival of the fittest.
First, and most important I have never claimed that natural selection is wrong. Again you are making a completely unfounded claim and I would be more polite in my response, but I warned you before about this kind of thing. You need to listen and learn.
On the contrary I have always said, and you can check this out very easily by reviewing the archives at BioLogos, that natural selection is very important, but the Darwinian mechanism for natural selection, survival of the fittest is badly flawed, and is not supported by scientific evidence.
“The point being that the e. coli evolved not by chance, but in a manner consistent with adaption to the environment and there was no competition.”
This is an argument against survival of the fittest and not against natural selection.
I can read, and I suggest you do more reading. What does writing do except reveal to others what you are thinking. Are you suggesting that Dawkins doesn’t believe what he writes?
It is either that I don’t understand evolution so I am making all these wild claims, which I am not, or I do understand what evolution is all about so you and your allies need to make all these ad hominem arguments to “prove” that I cannot know what I am talking about.
You have made the discussion personal, which means you take my scientific understanding as an attack on yourself and those practice science, which it is not. Live your faith that science is an objective activity.
God is not disproved by Dawkins et al because they are mistaken, bot does that mean that if there really was no God that humans could not know this?. My faith is not based on the nature of natural selection, but my faith is also not held in a vacuum. If faith is not tested and passes the test, then it is useless. Just so science must be tested and if it fails the test, it is wrong. It is my observation that Survival of the fittest has not passed the test of science so it is wrong.