When individuals are selected for breeding they are removed from that gene pool. Certainly the individuals selected might have bred naturally without having been removed but the odds are very low and then their off spring would have bred into the population.
So? It's an artificial situation.
There's no way to know the odds of a natural mating, not knowing the genes of interest, the size of the population, how deeply the GOA has spread into the population and other information you don't have. I think you're saying low odds, because you think it supports you and makes it sound like you did some real hard math. Whoooo!
The pair selected for breeding are isolated from the main population, but neither in natural or artificial conditions does that mean the line can't be backcrossed into the original population they were removed from or some other same species population.
Whatever the case, this is not the description of a population bottleneck. The pair of organisms selected for artificial breeding would be similar to a founder population that has splintered off from the main population in natural conditions. Perhaps they wondered into a new territory out of the normal range. They are not likely to have the opportunity to breed with members of the main population again, but that isn't fixed. They may rejoin the main population or it may overtake them. Or they may remain isolated and begin to gradually diverge through mutation and natural selection in a process that you don't call evolution, but is evolution.
I haven't got the time or the space to go into plant an animal breeding, which you also don't seem to know that much about. But what I've written is enough to show that a pair of organisms artificially selected for breeding do not represent a bottleneck and the offspring are not a new species.
The removal of individuals and their offspring is effectively the same thing as the rest of the species dying off.
Functionally similar, but the rest of the species isn't dead. In a natural situation, the main or ancestral population doesn't have to disappear or die off.
The odds of nature accidently breeding dogs into existence through survival of the fittest is virtually nonexistent. Indeed, almost any major changes caused by such a process might be nearly as improbable.
So. Still not a population bottleneck or sudden.
Again, your claims of probability are dubious and immaterial.
The ancestors of dogs were those that naturally became accustomed to close contact with humans. At some point humans began to breed them for traits that were useful to us.
It is no surprise and not evidence against the theory of evolution and natural selection that artificially selected traits are unlikely to arise naturally. It doesn't falsify the theory or redefine a population bottleneck to mean something it isn't.
Species change but there is no such thing as "Evolution".
That is your belief. It isn't a fact no matter how omniscient you may think you are.
"Evolution" is defined as gradual change caused by survival of the fittest but this does not exist.
That is your straw man definition of evolution. Evolution is basically defined as the change in gene frequency of a population over time. There are other mechanisms of change in addition to natural selection, but it is the dominant mechanism. Since there are other mechanisms a specific one is not used or required in the definition. It exists. It has been demonstrated. If you at all listened to others you would know this.
When you ignore individual differences, consciousness, and specific behavior you are effectively saying these things play no role in speciation.
There is no evidence that these things have a role in speciation. If they did you could show us that role and the evidence supporting it. You never do. Repeating unevidenced claims are meandering through a ramble about ethics, morality and how the education system has imploded according to your professional opinion is not evidence for your claims.
The expression of the genome is irrelevant. Genes are irrelevant. Individuals are irrelevant. Experience and life are irrelevant.
What are you babbling on about now?
I agree.
But certainly even theologians are seeking answers.
Sure.
Philosophers are seeking answers.
Sure.
Who isn't seeking answers except those who have already found them?
It is my personal opinion that this includes you.
