I just read through this topic (since it was referred to in the topic about human cloning) and it's full of bullshirt (without the "r"). I'm not going to remark on all errors but there are 2 which are really worth pinpointing. One interesting comment, and one completely off track.
To set the record straight (I've completely lost what y'all are fighting for) gene mutations brought on by environmental exposure can bring about trait changes, albeit at a much lower rate than sexual reproduction.
Not quite complete
: natural evolution (as described bij Darwin) is much too slow to explain why certain changes in populations occured. Mutations are a key factor in giving a population that extra edge which allow it to survive sudden changes. Natural selection only works when (environmental) changes occur slowly. Natural selection also only has a chance of working when the initial population is large enough (read has a large enough gene pool). If the initial population is too small, it's doomed ... unless ... mutation occurs and the gene pool is increased. In the case of a really benefical trait, asexual reproduction (in organisms which do) is the fastest way of spreading the gene (increased probablity of then spreading it through sexual reproduction)
I dont think you quite understand. If we get the top 10% of people and clone them, then get the top 10% of them clones and clone them, then get the top 10% of them clones and clone them eventually we would of removed all inferior genes from the gene pool.
There would be no more crap genes, this would make the human race better, that by defininition is evolution, its a change. Its not a mutation but its still an advancment. Then we would probably start genetically modifying.
Selecting the top 10%, cloning them and reselecting, and a couple of times more will in fact result in the next selection having a smaller gene pool to select form than the previous one. The funny thing is that in selecting the 10% best (according to your criteria) you have probably eliminated 90% of genes which would allow adaptation when environment changes. You seem not to grasp the concept of variability (something Darwin certainly did grasp).
BTW, crap genes (very unfortunate choice of wording) may be very important. I'll give you a simple example. Ever heard of malaria?? You probably have. Well, without treatment it's fairly lethal. How come then (and we're not talking medical treatment here) than in areas in Africa infested with Anopheles (the vector or transmittor) carrying Plasmodium (the organism causing the disease), people actually live and survive?
It's because of one of those crap genes, which cause sickle cell anaemia, which is an aneamia
(and as such not beneficial at all) but has the interesting side effect that Plasmodium cannot enter the malformed red blood cells.
Al these selection programmes (for cattle and crop) have improved production yes, but in many cases resistance to environmental stress was (sometimes necessarily) neglected, resulting in more protective measures having to be taken for the breed (or crop) to even survive the slightest stress. The population has in this case been severely crippled and is not able to survive without external aid.
tOnk3r: your statement (quoted) and other statements clearly show you don't understand half of the words used in this topic, you don't understand cause and effect, you don't see a difference between cause and reason, you have no idea what instinct is about or how it is caused, nor evolution for that matter. I suggest you (at least) Google a bit before entering a topic like this (and like Darth said, reading something decent might also help).
To the moderators, I'm not trying to resurrect this topic at all. (natural selection did in fact kill it). Just consider me a mutation.