Sometimes it just seems that you aren't even trying to understand me.
What is to understand?
You talk about experiments and evidence, and NEVER present any. You write 100% nonsensical things about biology, yet believe them to be totally true.
This is because you suffer terribly from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I answered your questions where it was relevant and you just overlooked it.
No, you never answer anything.
You have never presented evidence or the results of experiments, just your repetitive, naive assertions from your "anything I can dream up is TROOO science".
I'm not going to even try to give you a complete answer here so you'll have to go back and compare this to the other TIMES I ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
You've never answered anything I have asked with anything but assertions. And your assertions demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of science.
All physical and behavioral characteristics have their root in genes.
Wow, really?
As an individual ages it relies increasingly heavily on experience and knowledge and increasingly less on genes and "instinct" but, especially in animals, genes drive physical characteristics and behavior for one single lifetime
Wow, really?
. Of course you don't understand the preceding sentence so you'll dismiss it like you didn't even read it.
You remind me of creationist Walter ReMine - an electrical engineer who, like you, pretends to be an expert on genetics. He, like you, spends a lot of time making trivially 'correct' claims, then couches his totally UNsupported, false claims in these assertions, then demands that his UNsupported claims are just as true as the actually true things he wrote.
For example, in his book he provided 14 citations supporting a claim, which he followed with a rather absurd assertion with ZERO citations, yet gets all in a tizzy when people ask him why he provided no support for his assertion.
Just like you, Johhny "broccas area."
If I twist your arm hard enough to read it then you'll claim it is just speculation rather than reality.
What has that got to do with the genetic difference between 'natural' and 'man made' bottlenecks? What does that have to do with your claim that a "broccas area" [sic] is all over the place... or NOT all over the place, depending on which argument you are pretending to make?
But it is fact and even were it not it is still the basis of what I'm saying and if you can't understand it or simply dismiss it you'll miss the next sentence yet again.
Stop rambling on about trivialities and lets see you EVIDENCE of EXPERIMENTS that support your claims about the genetic differences between 'natural' v. 'man made' bottlenecks.
Everyday life (survival of the fittest) selects for physical characteristics like strength, spreed, stamina, coloration, intelligence, vision etc etc etc.
I have corrected you about a dozen times on this, and it is clear why you refuse to answer my question when I ask you what you think "survival of the fittest" actually means.
Being self-taught AND a Dunning-Krugerite, your errors will never be corrected because you stupidly think that your errors are in fact correct.
BUT THIS ISN'T WHAT DRIVES EVOLUTION.
You don;t seem to understand what evolution IS, much less what drives it.
Your repeated assertions, devoid of evidence or experiential support, are just the musings of a layman with an ego issue.
It merely makes species healthier and reduces the numbers of "crips and tards" in the population and in future generations.
And I note you accidentally left of your evidence for this. And do you see yourself as a 'crip' or a 'tard'?
Species don't "evolve" at all, they change.
Golly gee, Mr. "broccas area" - HOW do they do that??? HOW do they change yet not evolve?
They change because most of the time mother nature kills off almost all of a species she kills all the ones that share a common BEHAVIOR.
And how is this behavior made to be common? Or how does a non-common behavior arise?
And does this non-common behavior carry with it morphological changes, too? And if so whore do THEY come from? Surely you cannot be so stupid as to think morphology is the result of behavior???
This means the few survivors DON'T HAVE THAT BEHAVIOR as much as the typical INDIVIDUAL. These ODDBALLS share a BEHAVIOR and the GENES that caused it. It is these SIMILAR ODDBALL GENES that SUDDENLY create a new species.
"Suddenly"???
Hey - it is so cool how you think re-asserting the same old unsupported, evidence-free and counterfactual assertions with BOLD and stuff makes them true.
Well, if you refuse to learn about how wrong you are, you will just continue to be a laughingstock.
I just don't know any other way to explain this to you.
Here is the thing - I do not accept your "explanations" as valid.
I am a professional biologist, and have studied and taught these sorts of things for years - you are, by your own admission, self-taught, yet you think that your mere unsupported musings trump the collected knowledge of an entire field of study.
WHERE IS YOUR ACTUAL EVIDENCE???
I know this is hard for egotists to grasp, but I do not accept your erroneous assertions at face value as being correct.
You provide no evidence.
You provide no references to experiments (despite your asking others for the same).
You think that I cannot understand your claims - yet the fact is, I DO understand them, and that is why I do not accept them, and whey I keep asking for actual evidence.
If your musings had merit, you should be able to provide some actual evidence.
Unlike you I could be wrong but this what anecdotal and experimental evidence shows.
THEN PRESENT THIS "anecdotal and experimental evidence"!!!!!
Your repetitive, naive assertions are NOT NOT NOT evidence.
Why is this so hard for you to understand and accept?
"Survival of the fittest" is more what made Hitler possible. It is what made Freud possible.
And here you go again - at this point, I have to conclude that you are just a shameless liar, for you have either had it explained to you, or it has been hinted that you are wrong about this DOZENS of times. Yet here you are, lying about a phrase yet again.
Hitler was a creationist Christian, just like you, by the way - he, also like you, rejected Darwin's ideas.
THAT is how naive and under-informed you are.
It really doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong because science (what passes for science today) is just as wrong or more wrong.
You're truly a piece of work..
Oh, and still nothing re:
What "experiment" re: Broca's area, and bottlenecks, and speciation , are you referring to, EXACTLY?