I haven't any idea how this point supports the rest of your argument, but, hey, what's new?
The point, if I might be so bold as to suggest sticking to it, was that it isn't necessary to punish failure to have evolutionary changes take place. It is only necessary to reward success. If evolution's beginnings were not a time of heavy dependance on hunting down your food to survive; if failure does not result in your genome losing the meat machinery in your possession to some other genome that's eaten you; then failure is not significant to evolution at this stage of the game.
What's important, I boldly aver, having just thought of it, is the ability to evolve as fast as possible, without stretching yourself so thin you discorporate.
I haven't any idea how this point supports the rest of your argument, but, hey, what's new?
Gee, I already told you the point in the post you are responding to:
As to fitness cost, I already gave it to you in the post you are responding to " However, in real life there is a fitness cost of non-useful organs, DNA, etc. It takes energy, food, etc. to keep such useless things alive so there is definitely a fitness cost." Further you already agreed that even a small fitness differential will result in the more fit organisms overcoming the less fit.
The above seems pretty plain to me. However now you are starting with the doubletalk:
The point, if I might be so bold as to suggest sticking to it, was that it isn't necessary to punish failure to have evolutionary changes take place. It is only necessary to reward success.
The above clearly contradicts your statement in post#1012:
It's a truism of entomology (been demonstrated in sealed mason jars thousands of times) that when two nearly identical species occupy nearly the same contained biological nitche, one or the other will eventually prevail entirely, no matter how tiny its differential advantage.
Clearly, you are contradicting yourself within a matter of a few posts. Which is it - a tiny advantage destroys a species or not? Make up your mind.
In addition, the entire theory of evolution is based on 'survival of the fittest' and the 'natural selection' replacement of God the Creator to sift through the almost unimaginable amount of possibilities to achieve a more advanced organism. You are thus proving my points earlier on that:
1. the experiment is false because it does not punish as yet useless novelties.
2. that evolution is impossible because the gradualness of it cannot be achieved due to the necessity of each miniscule change making the organism more fit at each and every point.