[Lucky Dog]

Thatcherite, Please accept my apologies.

From post 689:

From Lucky Dog: The implication of your statement is that species come into existence purely randomly. Is this what you meant to imply?

From Thatcherite: No. That isn't what I meant to imply, and it isn't the implication of my statement. For a more accurate reflection try bracketing the word species with "some" and "occasionally" and you'll be closer to the mark. I never said that genetic drift of separated populations was the only driver of speciation. Why on earth would you draw that conclusion?

As note not in the post cited above: Lucky Dog never said that all species come into existence in said manner. There was no such conclusion drawn.

The apparently offending portion of post 626 restated:

From Patrick Henry: Are you contending that the fitter individuals don't more frequently survive and pass their genes to the next generation?

From Lucky Dog: I have made no such statements. However, some others (advocates of evolution on this thread, I assume) have done so, at least indirectly. To wit: [Some] …Species [occasionally] evolve regardless of selection pressure…

I trust that this has restatement has removed the cause of your offense.

[Thatcherite]

I trust that this has restatement has removed the cause of your offense.

Not really, no. I have never contended that "fitter individuals don't more frequently survive and pass their genes to the next generation" and continuing to cite my words in support of this absurd contention is misrepresentation, pure and simple. Even genetic drift is controlled by natural selection, because of the immediate and final manner in which natural selection culls individuals harboring significantly deletrious alleles.