which is the best and true religion?

Effectiveness has nothing to do with whether or not a trait is incorporated into a genome. The only thing that matters is that the trait does not interfere with reproduction. A trait only becomes "effective" if it enhances survival and reproductive success. Mammoth with long coats did not, apparently, suffer any reduced reproductive success. When the ice ages began, they migrated north where their long coats were a positive advantage. Then the trait was advantageous and was reinforced and enhanced, one might almost say to the extent of exaggeration. When the ice ages ended, the advantage ended, and the changes in the flora of their environment doomed the wooly mammoth. Adaptation may happen quickly. Evolution may happen quickly, too, but it gos on over long periods of time, and success may be succeeded by failure.

Only reproductive success matters in these equations.

your mind

You are assuming , in the manner of so many Evolutionary Experts do that I am alleging that evolution has any goal, let alone efficacy.

What I am actually arguing is that without efficacy, we wouldn't be having any discussion about Evolution.

Do you disagree?

A trait not intefering with reproduction is an effective one.

If only reproductive success matters in these equations than a mutation that ensures such success is rightly called effective.

If there is an end game to evolution, as you seem to suggest and with which, I think, FM may disagree, then "effect" is implied.

You never are very swift. It is entirely possible that a trait will not ensure reproductive success, but will also not interfere with reproductive success. It was to that which i referred. Absolutely nothing i wrote even remotely suggested that there is an "end game" (your quality of expression sucks). There is also an important distinction to be made between effect and effectiveness. All in all, a typical poor performance, very likely because your object is to pick a fight rather than to discuss the subject.

Who is picking the fight?

Not me. You had no reason to trot out that bullshit you posted.

Apparently anyone who disagrees with you (civilly or otherwise) is guilty of bullshit.

It's the willful mischaracterization of what i write that i object to. You probably won't admit it, but that's your M.O., straw man arguments you hope will spark an acrimonious exchange.

Obviously you have no idea of how paranoid you sound.

AS though i care what you twisted opinion is. You've been a nasty, hateful son of a bitch since you got here. It's not paranoia, either--you treat everyone that way.

A woman once said I had the body of a god. I thought this was cool until I found out that she was a Buddhist.

[I'm sorry if you already heard this old joke.]

So many non-English speaking males in NYC wear a Yankee's cap, almost as a totem to give the impression of assimilation, in my opinion.

Giving an actual answer!!!! BUDDHISM (spelling)*, it parallels Quantum physics... SCIENCE, in it's beliefe that the entire world is in each and every persons mind. If their are 2 people in the room, then there are 2 rooms which exist in the mind alone, the minds of each person. If there is nobody in the room, then for that period of "time", their is no room.
I'm an athesist, but this makes the most sence. Every atom is 99.999999999999% (12, 9's after the period) empty, it is the MIND that fills in the gaps. Look into quantum physics, & Buddhism*, & you'll see what I mean.
Maybe find peace as well, many one-time atheist scientists are flocking to this religion, the leaders in quantum physics even met with the Dali Lamma!! it's all on youtube. I say check it out for yourself!!
Best wishes, & I hope that you find what you're looking for

Ah-hahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Case in point.