The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

Normal trait? So ... any beneficial or neutral mutation, such as the ones that are constantly being observed?

I started a thread a while back asking if anyone had ever observed the beneficial conversion of a gene to a pseudogene, and I'm still interested. The experiment shouldn't be too difficult --- just provide a model organism with a constant supply of something that the "wild" organism expends energy and nutrients to make.

Wait ... you still don't even understand that mutations exist?Sheesh. It's pathetic.Perhaps you should go away and (I may have said this before) learn some frickin' genetics.

... so, a mutation that doesn't actually produce anything novel?You are funny.Of course, one could supply you with instances ... but how would they be relevant to the production of evolutionary novelty?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Again, if this made sense, it would be a lie. But again, your own incoherence has prevented you from being as wrong as you'd like.

Unlike you, I have studied genetics. If you really wish to deceive people with this pathetic trash, try a Sunday School class.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The context? The context, Faith, is that you are so incoherent, and so wrong about such a multitude of subjects, that it is sometimes hard to tell what in particular you want to be wrong about. If you scream in denial of one fact, how am I meant to know that you meant to be shrieking in denial of another? What you now claim you meant to say sounds just as silly as what you actually did say, so how am I to know which ludicrous error you intended to make?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

... and your point is?Yes, mutations are a product of chance. Have you really not grasped that yet? This lie would be more interesting if fewer creationists had learned to recite it. Scientists disagree with you. So who should I believe about the nature of science --- scientists, or a woman who drivels out hopeless nonsense about every scientific topic she mentions? But you can't recognize it when you see it. Why do you suppose scientists think that creationists are a bunch of drooling halfwits? Why do you think everyone round here is laughing at you?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"Nullifies"? Is that the same as "changes"?

... I guess.

No. Not any more.One of the consequences of evolution is that our habit of dividing organisms into species may be useful to us but can never have any logical foundation. Your point is obscure.Remember that Faith's "model" involves every non-kosher animal being reduced to a single breeding pair around 2517 B.C. Given that there were only two wolves on the Ark, then how, in Faith's model, did the "vast quantity of alleles" originate?Faith is a creationist, she doesn't do joined-up thinking.

Given long enough, and without any mutations happening, then one allele will become fixed. That's just math.In many cases there has not been enough time, and in no cases have there been no mutations. You haven't done the math, and you are misunderstanding the word "dominant".Faith is, of course, talking complete rubbish. But unfortunately, so are you. You haven't done the math. Where is the math?You need "Wounded King", an actual geneticist, to talk about this, or you need me, an actual mathematician. Or both of us working in concert.The "Great Debate" concept of these forums is stupid and should be abolished.

No. You are stupidly, pathetically, droolingly, hopelessly incompetent and stupid and ignorant about the very meaning of the technical terms used in genetics.Once more, once again, once again for one more time --- go and read a textbook of genetics.

No, of course you don't see that. This is because you have never studied genetics even so far as to understand even the words that you are using.I may have said this before. And I am going to say it again.You are hopelessly ignorant about genetics, so what you need to do now is to get a basic textbook about genetics so that you at least know the meaning of the vocabulary that you are using.For pity's sake, Faith.

Only if the population is infinitely large.If it isn't, and if no new mutations occur, then given enough time one of the variant alleles must become fixed in the population. And the question of which allele is "dominant" has nothing to do with which one will become fixed.If new mutations do arise, which they will, then the question becomes moot.