But you don't accept a standard definition of species.
More seriously, you made a categorical statement that is clearly false. We could transmit all sorts of information by killing individuals. I'm not suggesting it as a moral precept.
First of all creation and destruction are opposites. You do not create anything by destroying (and it is this horrible thesis which was taken up by Communists and Nazis for their evil deeds).
Even that is false. You and I exist because of programmed cell death. When you were an unborn child, millions of your cells died so you could develop to full term. Life exists because of death. The carbon in our bodies has been part of the bodies of millions of other life forms before us. Trying to develop moral precepts from natural phenomena is fallacious. European coots, when they breed, have too many offspring, and kill the surplus ones. That's a biological fact; it doesn't require you to believe in evolution. It's horrible, and I defy you to derive a moral lesson from it.
Second of all, it is a well established scientific fact that species need and benefit from a large gene pool.
That's an unsettled question. They thought for a while cheetahs were suffering from inbreeding. Now it's not so clear. Humans have been genetically bottlenecked - though not as badly as if we'd been descended fom one male and one female 6000 years ago - and we're OK.
In addition to which, 'mutts', 'wild' and 'mixed breeds' have it all over thorougbreds and inbreds which is what natural selection causes - a decrease in the gene pool of a species.
Oddly enough, you're spouting mainstream biological dogma here in an area where a lot of biologists are questioning the dogma. One of the reasons speciation happens is because intermeditate forms are often less fit.
Totally false. I have strongly stated many times that the only legitimate definition of species is the biological definition - a species is a group of organisms which can reproduce with each other and produce viable, reproducing progeny. I have strongly argued against the subjective definitions of the evolutionists.
First of all creation and destruction are opposites. You do not create anything by destroying-me-
Even that is false.
No, biologically it is true. While your statements may all be correct, they are irrelevant to the discussion which is that the genetic basis of a species is reduced, not increased by natural selection. It also does not deal with the scientific facts that show that breeds which are 'mongrelized' are hardier, live longer and have more defenses against sickness, etc. than the pure breeds. The evidence that selection does not make for an improvement in a species is overwhelming. Here's the reason. Let's say that half of a species got destroyed because it could not genetically deal with cold weather. What would happen next time the environmental conditions turn around? The species would not be able to deal with the warm weather and the 'survivors' would die and with it the species. That is why the greater the genetic pool of a species, the hardier it is. Further, let's remember that all individuals carry two copies of a gene and can, in one and the same individual pass on genes for opposite situations. This makes the species very hardy indeed and is why selection is bad for a species.