No. There is no evidence that this is correct. It isn't correct.
Every year the populations of insects drop without it being an extinction event. Many songbirds in my area disappear in the winter. By fall, the armadillos and road runners in Missouri are no longer observed. All of these are examples of populations dropping that are quite common. None indicate an extinction.
Population numbers can decline for many reasons that have nothing to do with extinction. Life cycle changes, migration, hibernation all impact population numbers and are not extinctions.
You can believe whatever you want. It isn't correct.
More baseless claims that are incorrect.
Once again, you are simply wrong.
Darwin read Malthus and was very aware that populations were unstable and that there was struggle to survive within and between populations.
A population bottleneck is a mid-20th Century concept that Darwin wouldn't have been aware of and he did not assume that consciousness was irrelevant to the theory of evolution. It just is irrelevant. There is no evidence or reason to consider it as an integral component of evolution.
I can only guess that you read "random walk" somewhere and fell in love with the term. What you are saying doesn't make sense. Mutations are random and generate variation, but selection is not random and favors the variation that increases fitness.
Wrong again. All the evidence supports gradual change in populations driven by natural selection.
I've studied biology since I was a child. I have advanced degrees in biology and chemistry. I've worked for the government, industry and taught at a university, but until I encountered you, I've never met someone that delivers claims about biology as if they were omniscient while appearing to know almost nothing about the subject. I suppose with the exception of some creationists/literalists.
I can't imagine how you feel you have a voice here when you appear entirely ignorant of the even the most basic knowledge of the subject matter.
