News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

I deducted 90% of all mutations as a concession to this unverifiable claim. What more do you expect?

Now this is odd. I didn't know all mutations were linked to reproduction. Eugenecists don't know this either. They claim the unfit are outreproducing the fit at quite an alarming rate.

I don't think anyone knows all mutations are linked to reproduction because I don't think it's true, or even remotely plausible. I do know it runs contrary to observations, but I also know how little regard propagandists have for observation.

If they acknowledge his authority. That's a bit of an assumption, and a tad on the arrogant side also. If RAZD were such an authority, and such a wonderful fount of information on this topic, it is even more strange that he omitted the recessive nature of most mutations...

There's no link between mutation and reproductive rates, unless the mutation effects reproduction. This is all make-believe. This is what one produces when one has no facts and still intends to argue.

Those aren't exceptions. Folks should learn what terms mean; not simply employ words for show. But in order to have exceptions, one would first need to have an actual rule. The "rule" in this case is the assertion that possessing a bad mutation will somehow retard fertility or libido or whatever LL's imagining. This claim is just bogus. It's not even biology 101, there's just no mechanism linking mutation to reproductive rate.

When reproductive rates vary, they are almost always linked to population density. This in itself rules out Darwin's dream for most species because the intense intraspecies competition he acknowledged had to take place in time of famine in order to weed out the less fit does not actually occur in nature for most lifeforms.

This is a long-forgotten ingredient in the recipe for natural selection. Nowadays the selection god just magically detects the unfit, and even when there is no hardship available to kill them, gets the job done on the magic faith of the true believers alone. No longer is any real-world device required.

I notice several experiments there where artificial selection was employed, but none involving natural selection. It may have escaped the notice of the page's author, but natural selection does not take place in a controlled lab environment - by definition.

It is possible I overlooked something somewhere. I'm not perfect. If this is the case, I'd like to be informed of my mistake. Until I am, I don't intend to double check. My experience with such claims indicates that such an expenditure of my time would be fruitless.

Indeed, the author promises to provide artificial selection examples and call them "natural selection" right from the get-go.
This is also misleading, since single celled life has built in mechanisms which mix designated portions of the genes during reproduction. Clonal reproduction is a myth, and in many cases an outright lie because the source is informed. Only individual cells in multicellular life are designed to clone themselves, because they are components and because recombination has already taken place during and prior to reproduction. There are exceptions, which one fully expects.

Some will do not admit this fact. Some refuse to see it. Some are unaware. For such I must point out that even if it were not true, the fact that these experiments all hinge upon cloneness means they are absolutely irrelevant to multicellular life. You cannot produce such "beneficial" mutations in multicellular life experiments because the key element is the clone myth.

This myth is busted wide open by the fact that every last one of the "mutations" is repeatable, and therefore cannot be a random mutation. Rather it must be the result of some built-in mechanism. Random mutations don't repeat like clockwork. Events which repeat like clockwork are non-random events, as anyone with a lick of sense must acknowledge.

Have they not figured this out, or do they assume the truth-seeking sector of the public is too stupid?


An understanding of Recombination is required before one can even perform some classes of experiments, so it would be odd for anyone conducting them to accept the clone myth.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_protein if you're interested.

In anticipation of typical arguments targeting the gullible, I will point out that taking a Huskey and a Mexican Hairless to Siberia is not a test of natural selection. It is a contrived scenario to select the small dog. It is artificial selection. In Darwin's day they didn't see a need to confuse the two, but desperation has a way of muddying definitions sometimes.