Darwin argued that evolution must be correct by stating that we must have all had a common ancestor somewhere along the line, but that only successful genes for certain geological and climactic areas were passed down through later generations, which allowed them to develop into multiple different species. This theory also relies on natural selection or survival of the fittest. For example, why should specific breeds of flowers be brightly and multicolored? They’re so brightly colored because they need to attract animals and insects to them to so that those animals and insects will pollinate them so that they can continue living as a species. Those flowers are also adapted to live in the climates and geological areas from which they originated from.
I tend to think that the flower argument is a good one. Dull flowers would be less likely to be seen which would make them less likely to be pollinated which, in turn, would kill off that species of flower. Because dull flowers wouldn’t survive in the world, this means that they would have to be brightly colored. The flowers are also adjusted to living where they originate from, so some flowers do better in constant shade whereas some other flowers, like sun flowers, flourish in constant sunlight. The temperature differences and the geological differences mean everything to those plants and if taken out of those environments, without evolution, they would die. Because plants are often seen moving to different climates and geological areas (ie. moving up and down mountains over long periods of time), I feel like it’s safe to assume that those plants are being seen evolving to adjust to their lives in new areas. Without evolution, things would die because they wouldn’t be able to adapt to new climates or geological areas.