The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

Sure, when a subpopulation is formed, for example by a flock of birds getting blown to a vacant island, this produces a genetic bottleneck. Yes. So?It's as though you explained to us that parachuting must be fatal because just after someone jumps out of a plane, they accelerate to a breakneck speed. We point out that after you pull the ripcord, the parachute opens, slowing you down. "Ah," you reply, "but that comes at a later stage of parachuting. Why does everyone want to talk about what happens after the parachute opens, when I've made it clear that my focus is on what happens before the parachute opens?"Well, because what happens afterwards vitiates your argument. You don't get to pick and choose one aspect of the process to look at and ignore the rest, if you wish to offer a critique of the whole process.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No offense taken. That's part of evolution, just as plummeting to the ground at breakneck speeds is part of parachuting.But focusing on one part does not yield a critique of the whole process. But in order to get a new beak type, or whatever it is, fixed in a subpopulation, a new beak type must first arise. I didn't mean that you were trying to shift what you were saying from post to post; I meant that your argument is inherently shifting from one thing to another and confusing separate issues.

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.You ask if that is how we "get and maintain a breed". That may be how we "maintain" a breed, but it it is not how we get one.See my previous posts.And in fact it's not necessarily how we maintain a breed. Look up cat breeding and the rules for an "American Curl". Again, look up the American Curl. Yes, by definition. Any subset of dogs is less diverse than all dogs. Now you are using weasel words. This seems to me to be the essence of the mess you're making. NO, I would not say anything like that, because it would be grossly deceptive, and I hate deceit.Note that I am not implying that you are insincere in saying so --- just that if I, with my superior knowledge, was to say such a thing, then I would either be lying or insane. No.Darwin used artifical selection as an analogy for natural selection.In any case, who really gives a fuck about what Darwin thought? Your goal is to argue that every biologist living today, right now is wrong about biology. No. In fact, I have often explained the different roles of mutation and selection to people by using the analogy that mutation is the engine --- and selection is the steering wheel. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. Evolution is simply any change whatsoever in the composition of a gene pool. And it has no "end goals". If you wish to talk about speciation, then speciation is what you should actually talk about.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, this seems strange.You assert that you know all about the evolution of dogs and cats and giraffes and humans, something that you have never observed. And you wish to cry up your "knowledge" as the paradigm for evolution.But there are some cases where we can watch exactly how evolution happens. We have watched evolution in experimental model organisms such as "fruit flies, bacteria, viruses and plants".So you say that there's "no point in using them in this argument", on the grounds that you don't know anything about this.I am at a loss for words. You rule out discussion of all actual observations of evolution simply on the grounds that you yourself don't know anything about these observations. Whereas you assert knowledge about the evolution of giraffes ... when this is something that neither you nor anyone else has ever observed.You rule out as a topic of discussion everything that everyone can watch happening if they take enough trouble. But you assert as a fact something contrary to reason that no-one has ever seen.Do I wake or sleep?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are right. And I would suggest that the lack of clarity in your language is a result of a lack of clarity in your thought.I suggest that you study a bit of basic genetics until either you can express your ideas clearly or you realize that they're wrong. Either way is good, but at present your argument, if one can dignify it with that name, appears to be a 50/50 mixture of stuff that you've made up and stuff that doesn't even mean anything.

You don't say.I for one am amazed to learn this. It's a bombshell.You really mean to tell me that when you drooled out halfwitted crap about genetics, you didn't actually know anything about genetics?Well, color me surprised. I thought that your contemptible ignorance on every scientific subject that you ever discuss was a sure and certain sign that you were an expert on that subject.Either that, or I'm being sarcastic.

Well then, we must agree to disagree.Since the moderators have allowed Faith to start posting again, I have discovered that she has various flaws of her personality and intellect whereof I may not speak, because that would make the moderators cross with me.Nonetheless, I think that I am free to say that Faith prates about genetics when Faith is droolingly hopelessly ignorant and deluded about genetics. That's not an insult, that's just an undeniable fact.

But that's exactly what I find so objectionable.She's talking about a subject that she knows nothing about, because she's never bothered to study it. And she must know that she's never bothered to study it, this isn't something that one could simply be mistaken about.So she can only hope to ever be right about anything she says by pure accident.It's so irresponsible. Suppose I flipped a coin to decide whether or not to accuse you of murder ... arson ... rape ... child abuse ... and so forth. Now, I wouldn't know for certain that I was wrong every time the coin came up heads, but on what grounds could I believe that I was right? If that isn't bearing false witness, what is?

I think that that's exactly how a Young Earth Creationist thinks. And I use the word "thinks" in the loosest possible sense.What's your point?

She's talking about genetics and she doesn't even know what "mutation" means.For pity's sake. If she's really that ignorant about genetics, and if she hasn't been bothered to learn even the basic vocabulary of genetics, then it is contemptible that she should presume to lecture other people on the subject of genetics, a subject which, as she must know perfectly well, she has never bothered to study even in its most basic aspects.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, that would be recombination.I explained to you what "mutation" means and you didn't understand what it was even after I explained it to you.

While we can advise you, and have advised you, on how to make your posts less flagrantly inaccurate, we can't actually write them for you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And the fact that your "conclusion" is known to be completely untrue not only vitiates your argument but also sheds an interesting light on your thought processes.A "conclusion" is meant to be something one draws from the evidence, not something one makes up because one's other fantasies depend on it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Heh. Good luck with that. Why don't you work up to it gradually by proving that pigs have silvery wings? Not "expected". Measured. Evolutionists, you see, get their facts from the real world. Observation proves that your fantasy is wrong. And these people are called "scientists" and they have done the research, and the answer is yes.If you can't be bothered to look at reality yourself, you could at least look at the results of the people who have looked at reality.---And could I suggest again --- until you've taken the trouble to find out the most basic things about genetics, you shouldn't be humiliating yourself by discussing it in public.

If this actually meant something, then it would be wrong. But the fact that you are speaking in a jargon apparently of your own invention has prevented you from making the mistake that you're trying to make.Would you like to try again? You'll need a beginner's book on genetics, preferably one with chewable pages, and a dictionary of the English language.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.