Have evolutionists documented the formation of NEW genetic material? (Lost Thread)

I agree wholeheartedly with Coyote's post just above, so all I really want to do is nit-pick Huntard's idea of selection pressure. Sorry Huntard, I'm not buying this part of your post (the rest is super). Or I'm not understanding you correctly. How can the selective pressure be LOW and not HIGH? I assume that the environment is stable and the niches full. I would think that mutations would be fiercely selected against. That is, hardly any mutations (far less than in an earlier primitive environment) would become beneficial. Could you or somebody clarify this detail.Edited by CosmicChimp, : spelling

Good post, thanks. I get it now, but I still do not see the logic of fitting the normally stable factor (ecosystem/environment) with the variable term (low, medium or high selection pressure) especially when the species is the one doing the changing, if any at all. Of course, given the pre-existing condition of a changed (or invaded) ecosystem, the logical use of the label becomes apparent. Plus I find it lately immensely more useful to ponder biology while considering the individual (and it's individual genes or gene groups) rather than the whole species (gene pool); but you say considering the whole species prerequisite for proper use of the terminology (low, medium or high selection pressure). But I do appreciate your response as surely it must be the standard scientific conventions in use.Let me ask you this though, in regards to this sentence from your last post. The bold part it what I'm not understanding. How can the breeding be anything other than simply the one thing that it is, possible?