Natural selection is wrong as theory for the origin of new species What do u think?

That may be, but Darwin published this before the discovery of genetics so he would have had no knowledge of this information at the time. Natural selection is still a key factor in evolution so it is not 'wrong', it was only missing the information on genetics at the time. The modern theory includes both genetics and natural selection so I'm not sure what your beef is with.

Random mutations are ultimately responsible for new species, however NS is the process which determines which ones will flourish and survive, and which ones die out.

By your same reasoning, garden shears aren't responsible for the creation of topiary animals. All the shears do is cut existing twigs. They can't produce new growth.

It is true that natural selection does not generate mutations. However, natural selection is what causes a mutation to increase in frequency within a population. Natural selection can also cause a mutation to be removed from the gene pool, if it is deterious enough. Natural selection can therefore change a population genetically. If a population is changed genetically, it is a different population than the parental species. If the new population continues to interbreed with other populations that have not changed, then the new trait(s) may be introduced to other populations. If for some reason the new population that has changed becomes isolated from the old one (say, for example, because of a geographical barrier such as a desert that may have appeared between an old population and a new one), and if new mutations arise, then the new population will be changed further. Over long periods of time, these accumulated changes may give rise to a population that is significantly different from the old one. At this point, a new species may or may not have evolved. How, then, do we know if a new species has in fact evolved? That is a question that is often difficult to answer, leading to disagreements among scientists as to whether 2 populations may in fact be one species or two. In many cases, however, the answer is clear. The two populations that were once isolated geographically from each other may come into contact once again. When they do meet, they may interbreed freely. In such cases, scientists would agree that speciation has not ocurred despite changes in one or both populations. An example of this would be human populations that have become geographically isolated from others. When they come into contact again, these populations can and often do interbreed freely and successfully, even if some of the populations have evolved novelties like straight hair, light skin tones and eye colors other than brown and hair colors other than black. In some cases, however, two populations may have become so different that they may not interbreed at all because they no longer recognize the other population as being the same species. For example, humans would not interbreed with chimpanzees because we do not recognize each other as the same species. No human, for example, would recognize a chimp as the same species and no chimp will think that humans are chimps. We have therefore evolved into different species since we last shared a common ancestor 5 million years ago. Chimpanzees share with humans 98-99% of their DNA, which is irrefutable evidence of a close evolutionary relationship. Despite the genetic similarity, we do not interbreed with chimps and are different species. Speciation therefore has occurred. Hence most reasonable and intelligent people would conclude that natural selection can indeed lead to speciation.

Colin Dean AGAIN. Dean has actually shown nothing. If you check some of the literature you'll find no mention of the silly man. Read Darwin instead, or Huxley, or Dawkins. Get a look at reality, not Colin Dean

Why not just listen to the babble of Sylvia Brown or other pseudoscience people who promote nonsense as if it is the "gospel " Colin Dean has never published any of his tripe in respected peer reviewed journals ( as it is NOT science )and his opinions and rudimentary understanding of evolution and natural selection fly in the face of the stance of the National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, all established Biology societies, etc. If Colin Dean has such a great idea he would outline his hypothesis , give all his supporting data and modeling, and have other institutions replicate his experiments ( which is hard as he has NONE )..then one would see. All Colin Dean has is an invisible dragon is his garage which he wants you to believe exists even though he has no proof, no evidence, no justifications, no chain of reasoning... The net is repleat with such drivel. Read some actual peer reviewed articles and monographs from established authorities in the field before mouthing the totally nonsensical beliefs of a "scientist" not even known within his neighborhood much less in the world of science. At the end of the day, beliefs matter nothing in science, replicated , peer reviewed and critiqued, convergent data, modeling, and prediction are the hallmarks of science. Natural selection meets these criteria in spades

By your logic a car's engine is "wrong" as a theory of why the car moves ... because the car engine cannot create new gasoline. (So much for "irrefutable" logic.)

You know nothing of genetics. Darwin's theory is useful for the time being, and may turn out to be correct.

You are confused on what exactly genes do. The expression of genes at varying times can actually cause new species. A new species does not arise merely by new genes being developed, it happens by way of what genes being expressed, and at what time they are expressed they become beneficial within an environment. Humans, chickens, snakes and many others for example share the same genes from our spinal columns. However, the snake has promoter regions that give it all thoracic vertebrae and a human has promoter regions that gives us the design we have. Thus the same genes, arranged and activated in a different way can lead to new species. Natural selection was put forth as the theory before we started discovering all we know about genetics, biochemistry and all the myriad other sciences that add to our understanding. Why do you people insist on using archaic information (yes, info from the 19th century is outdated as hard as that is to understand) to use in your arguments? Do some of that good old fashioned 'book learnin' you all seem so opposed to and then try to argue some valid points.