Natural Selection and what it didn\'t do for dogs... (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, January 24, 2010, 14:42 (5416 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,-You do an excellent job of speaking clearly about this topic about natural selection, but I'm puzzled in how I should respond, because I don't see anything to debate here. -I will pose a question here to both David and yourself. -What exactly do we mean by mutation? I ask this because the variations allowed by sexual reproduction itself is typically the cause of genetic change. As current evolutionary theory stands, these small modifications from generation to generation are carried forward until something triggers a selection event, where then suddenly, something that was no longer important becomes important. Sexual reproduction is the source of genetic variation in sexual creatures, and mutation for everything else. (Bacterium just copy themselves ad nauseum.) -Why this ties in with dogs is that this statement shows that the reason the forms of life we see are here, is because of a selection event. It explains adaptation. -So do I understand that both you and David would contend that the combinations of sexual reproduction and natural selection are insufficient to describe life's diversity? -If so, exhibit A: Dogs.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"