You may as well include me among those who believe that selection can occur in the absence of variation. Naturally, without any variation it doesn't matter with regard to the genome of the population which are selected, but selection can occur nonetheless.
I don't really believe I'll be any more successful explaining this to you than anyone else, but what the heck, I'll give it a try.
First, Quetzal, John and Peter are *not* non-variationist Darwinists. They simply recognize that selection and variation are independent variables. That's all they've been trying to explain to you, nothing more, nothing less.
Second, with no variation, selection will produce identical subsequent generations with respect to the genome of the population, except that there is no possible way to prevent variation. Each act of reproduction includes copying errors, and so each generation must necessarily be different from the previous. So if you're beginning your evolutionary experiment with a genetically uniform population, then the next generation *will* have variation, and now selection becomes potentially meaningful with respect to evolution.
Third, I suspect that once someone properly explains the actual point we've been making to you here over at
Sign in - Google Accounts that they'll agree with us. In other words, if you've been painting the people here as non-variationist Darwinists then you've been misrepresenting our views.
And fourth, I can't believe you've turned such a simple point into lengthy discussions across two boards. Unbelievable!
--Percy