quote:
There's a number of links out there which formulate similar statements as mine which you are nitpicking. Are they all silly?
Yes, unless there is further clarification. Perhaps 'sloppy' is a better word, and scientists do tend to be sloppy with language when not writing for peer reviewed journals. THEY know what they mean, but it doesn't always translate well. That is a dangerous way to write. I'm sorry you don't like precision, buz. Maybe you should think about that.
The fact is that NS does not require
random mutation. If it did, and I suspect this is what you are trying to do, you could negate 'random mutation' and conclude that NS does not happen. It doesn't work that way. Consider this scenario. Scientists somehow determine that there are mutations but that NO mutations are random. Hmmm... you still have variation in each generation and thus you can still have NS. Thus, the formulation is incorrect. It allows you to derive the wrong conclusion. Why is pointing that out a problem? Anything derived from the statement that NS requires RM, is invalid. You need to reformulate it such that you cannot derive the wrong conclusion.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com