No, you use the arguments in a Creationist means to attempt to assert that there is a bigass war going on in science. As I said before, there is NOT> In your past visits youve presented a "Creationist leaning" in how you presented the statements about neutral theory. You seemed to be presenting some sort of argument that all the conclusions were of a totally random process in which naturl selection was "losing" its [lace.
You must recognize that Nat selection isnt
1Unimportant in the changes in genotypes through geologic history
2Neutral theory only states that several versions of a gene can exist at the same time in a population of organisms.
3Mutations are random, adaptive or exaptive forces are NOT.
(Lots of times we see the existence of archaic adapted forms of a species that are still hanging around well after their "primo adaptational" environment existed through time.
Some features, such as feathers were not an original adaptation to a specific function. For example, feathers on birds were probably not a feature that originally arose to allow for flight. Flight is considered an EXAPTATION.where a function arose as an aside to a features original adaptive function (perhaps warmth or cuteness, who knows?)
Neutral theory's makeup isnt "Replacing " anything, It augments the mechanisms involved in the evolutionary process. Its been around for decades and, was somehow boldly misinterpreted in its overall use (mostly by Creationist leaning folks who wish to subvert the evidence of linneages )
Evidence is pretty clear of many organism fetures and their adaptational function
1 Large frames for insects during the carboniferous were only an adaptation to the high O2 levels in the atmosphere
2Insect wings were adapted for a specific environment (also in the Crboniferous). They were an exaptation when used for flight in the later Carboniferous
3 Fish of the Rhipidistian suborders evolved progressively to be more "land adapted"(amphibians) as the Devonian non-marine environments became dominant as the various land masses began to coalesce into the later supercontinent.
Arguments, as they exist among the worker bees in the field surround topics like
1HOW MUCH genetic variation is adaptive?
2 How much is exaptive
Two scientists will argue mechanisms and results not whethere something doesnt happen at all or that theres a "new breed" of guys who, like the "New Global Tectonics" guys, are in "touch with the truth"
Thats what I see as the bullshit part with the Creationist sources jumping in as if they even understand what the science is saying.
Its difficult to look at the ancient world and rely on stochastics, when adaptation can be seen to provide phenotypes that are just "good enough" to survive the PRESENT environment and not be pre planned for the new.