natural selection is wrong

Yes B is more likely to reproduce, but my point was that since there are so few of them at the start, they have a high chance of getting wiped out, becoming extinct. B has an uh.. about 79 percent chance of getting *wiped out* in the first generation.You are merely demonstrating once again how deceptive it is to look comparitively to variants, which was my point all along. B has a 79 percent chance of *decreasing* it's populationshare to 0. Your wording like "The "B" is 10% more likely to reproduce, thus increases its precence roughly by 10% in each generation" is entirely deceptive of the fact that it will most likely be wiped out. And 10 percent is generally said to be an enormous difference in natural selection theory. Even enormous advantages are likely wiped out, as in general the share between organisms that reproduce and organisms that don't produce in a population is quite small.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I was talking about extinction. It is obviously easier to make B go extinct, if there is only 1 B in the population, then to make A go extinct, when there are 999 A's.If the mutation get's wiped out 4 times, and sweeps to fixation one time, it is still true that beneficial mutations get wiped out most times, like I said. But true enough if you have the beneficial mutation occurring repeatedly, then eventually one would sweep to fixation. The likelyhood of reoccurrence of the mutation just depends on the nature of the mutation. This reoccurrence is only a given when there is an infinity of chances for mutation, which infinity doesn't exist.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It showed it yes, what is your point? Would you like to deny that the repeatability of mutations differs much, or to argue that most types of mutations are repeated? Good luck with that.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You seem to have great difficulty in talking about this in general terms. You gave some references to some papers about repetitive mutations, now go and make general statements about the nature of mutations, or whatever your point is.It is not nonsense to say that advantageous mutations get wiped out most times, when, well they do, where you in stead make highly deceptive statements that it is a given that the advantaged will dominate, and whatnot, which is untrue most times.So do advantageous mutations get wiped out most times?Do mutations repeat themselves normally within an appreciable timeframe?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

They get wiped out most times, because advantageous mutations usually start out with small numbers.You obviously have to reference some papers that make general statements about mutations to support your dubious argument, not reference papers about particular cases of mutations, which may not be representative of mutations in general.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You're welcome to contribute. Of course the rule is that you should have something new argument, or at least a new way of expressing the arguments.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Most my arguments about natural selection are about the structure of the theory. My arguments mostly have nothing whatsoever to do with whether evolution happened or not. You seem to misconstrue my argument.Yes thanks for acknowledging, most mutations get wiped out, most advantageous mutations get wiped out. You really seem to have denied this previously. Why didn't you say "it is a given that" blabla..., where now you acknowledge that advantageous mutations get wiped out most times. You were simply wrong, and I was right.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

There is no deception whatsoever in my posts. I am right because advantageous mutations do get wiped out most times, for the reason i gave several times before. You either don't acknowledge this fact clear enough ("No..." "it's given that.. will dominate", "utter nonsense" etc.) or you actually don't believe it's true, which is both wrong. That you go on calling me a liar, merely reflects your own difficulties in acknowledging your errors.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well reasonably that's not true I guess, because theoretically the advantage is normally tiny, and so a tiny advantage would not generally result in significantly less extinction.I think it's more to the point with the current Darwinist paradigm ruling biology, to curb errors stemming from natural selection theory, rather then to uselessly overemphasize the significance of advantage once again. Darwinist literature is filled with statements such as that the "slightest" advantage will "inevitably" become to dominate, which fault is simply an error stemming from overemphasizing natural selection theory in the structure of knowledge about likelyhood of reproduction / preservation. As also Darwin's conception of racial and tribal struggle, as mentioned a few posts before, is simply an error stemming from observations being prejudicially confined by natural selection, prejudicially confined to groups of variants struggling against each other.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But "signficantly more frequently" is very subjective. If somebody is wrong 99 percent of the time, and another is wrong 95 percent of the time, it can be expressed as 5 times more right, or just 4 percent more right. Obviously my intended meaning is, when you see a mutation in nature, you should guess it doesn't get preserved, regardless if it's avantageuous or not.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think deleterious mutations in germcells killing them before they get to form a zygote should be included yes, because advantageous mutations which apply to germcells getting to the zygote are also included.The difference between preservation of deleterious / neutral and advantageous is not signficant when most all advantageous mutations get wiped out also. I guess more then 5 percent preservation would be somewhat signficant, otherwise I would prefer to say that most all mutations advantageous or not, get wiped out. Otherwise it being a bit misrepresentive to say that advantagueous mutations tend to be preserved, when over 95 percent of advantageous mutations are wiped out.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Again, it is a simple matter of organization of knowledge. First is noted that mutations tend not to get preserved, secondary is that advantageous mutations are wiped out less then neutral/deleterious mutations. That is the correct order, and any other order is wrong. I'm just pointing out once again, that the focus of natural selection is odd, you jump to the advantageous vs deleterious difference without looking to mutations in general, how they relate to the environment. It is wrong by rules in organizing knowledge.Actually to include the mutations that don't form a zygote even, would make the difference between preservation advantageous and deleterious more pronounced, so to include it would support your argument rather then mine. But is seems fair to include all phenotypically expressed mutatations, and I guess making them die before forming a zygote is a phenotypical expression.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's difficult to think of a comparitive example which clearly shows the oddity of the practice of Darwinists. The rule is that you go from the more general to the more specific, where Darwinists start out with the more specific, and now and then touch upon the more general, which is actually fundamental to the more specific theory. It is prejudicial, why now you are even excluding observations which apparently don't suit your theory very much!I can only once again trot out differential gravitation theory as a comparitive example to show the oddity. This theory only applies to objects of differing mass. When the mass is different then the gravitational pull is different, that is a fact. So when an objects flies at an equal distance between two objects with differing mass, then the object will tend to fall towards the object with greater mass. Another fact, it's undeniable, etc. etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu