ksc replying to Schraf:
Whether natural selection is or isn’t is debateable.
It's only debatable if you want to change the context. The current discussion is considering the evolutionary pressure on organisms in a constant envirnoment.
What you have forgotten is that the mutations that you claim are naturally selected are RANDOM.
Shraf is well aware of this, as would be almost any evolutionist. Are you under some misimpression that this is a point in your favor?
Genetic differances will spread, but not differances produced by your mutations. For starters the changes would be so small that the environmental conditions would not even recognize them. In fact the time needed between a noticable morphological differance produced by mutations would be extremely long. So long that the environmental conditions would have probablty moved on long ago.
Organisms are not generally lucky enough to have a mutation occur simultaneous with environmental change. Most mutations just sit idle and recessive in the genome until an environmental change occurs for which they confer some advantage.
Schaf writes
BTW, you are wrong anbout most mutations being detrimental. Most mutations are neutral as regards to fitness. Please provide full references to the professional literature that says otherwise.
ksc replies:
I think you can find it in just about any book on evolution that talks honestly about the subject.
I think not. Did you perhaps misunderstand what Schraf said? You appear to be taking issue with a fact that almost everyone on both sides of the debate concedes to be true.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2