The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

That post came out way harsher sounding than I meant it to be. I was trying to be funny but it completely came out wrong. I apologize for that. I was kind of reading my posts with a deep booming WWE voice and it seemed legit at the time.

I feel ya. To be honest these debates really get to me, and I get out of hand at times. I can't imagine there's a more seasoned debate on these topics than the participants on these threads.

But anyway, let's call it a truce and call it the truth... for now

For the last time, this isn't a debate or you wouldn't be here. a formal debate has been proposed multiple times and no one has taken it. furthermore, we have a dozen threads that are all basically just scrambled carbon copies of each other. they are called "debates" but after 150+ pages of this song and dance, im inclined to disagree.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Debate? Give me the time and the place. It's about time one of you (or all of you - doesn't matter to me), steps up to the plate and presents your evidence.

Come up with some stipulations of victory. What determines the winner? Voting from observers would be too biased, unless we got a group of undecided people (regarding evo or ID). Or is it simply a mental exercise?

You name the time and the place. I'll be there.

West end of the reflecting pool in Washington DC at noon would be regal enough. ATS forum on a weekend might be the most convenient though.

Well are you up to a debate or not? The other guy didn't answer so I'll take that as a no.

If you're not, just say so and we'll be done with it.

Thanks

spoiler alert: its a waste of your time.

Evolution debate

Another evolution debate

ANOTHER evolution debate

Yet another evolution debate

Wait, again? Seriously?

....*sigh*

this is an exercise of pride for some members, they derive satisfaction from frustrating you and others. now that i have posted the links here, i imagine we can just let the willing educate themselves on the matter. the rest will not be moved no matter what lengths you go to.

i would say sure, lets do a formal debate. but if it could be resolved that simply, half those threads up there wouldnt exist. so...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

For the last time, this isn't a debate or you wouldn't be here. a formal debate has been proposed multiple times and no one has taken it. furthermore, we have a dozen threads that are all basically just scrambled carbon copies of each other. they are called "debates" but after 150+ pages of this song and dance, im inclined to disagree.

i would say sure, lets do a formal debate. but if it could be resolved that simply, half those threads up there wouldnt exist. so...

I believe that understanding our origins is imperative to discovering what/who we are, and It's a shame how divisive this issue is because I also believe unifying the people ideologically in truth would be a great leap forward. Beyond origins, I would assume we all have many similar beliefs and understandings on which we can unify on common ground. Despite how often "u litrly know nothing about science" is touted from both sides, we all actually do "know" a lot about these topics; otherwise we wouldn't last beyond a post with the sharks in the water.

Do we take the word of the ancients and believe that an Almighty Conscious source begot all of life? Or do we listen to the mainstream science that attempts to look back into history through contemporary observation? Once these two conflicting notions are harmonized, I believe a golden age will ensue.

a reply to: cooperton

I believe that understanding our origins is imperative to discovering what/who we are, and It's a shame how divisive this issue is because I also believe unifying the people ideologically in truth would be a great leap forward. Beyond origins, I would assume we all have many similar beliefs and understandings on which we can unify on common ground. Despite how often "u litrly know nothing about science" is touted from both sides, we all actually do "know" a lot about these topics; otherwise we wouldn't last beyond a post with the sharks in the water.

i think "unifying the people ideologically in truth" is just a fancy phrase for "youre either with us or against us".

and please dont mistake conviction for education. you make every effort to expose inconsistencies in science and evolution, but only reveal your misunderstanding of both.

Do we take the word of the ancients and believe that an Almighty Conscious source begot all of life? Or do we listen to the mainstream science that attempts to look back into history through contemporary observation? Once these two conflicting notions are harmonized, I believe a golden age will ensue.

good for you, but irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

and please dont mistake conviction for education. you make every effort to expose inconsistencies in science and evolution, but only reveal your misunderstanding of both.

People who don't agree with the theory of evolution are not inherently science deniers. Such thought reminds me of the Spanish inquisition - believe or die.

good for you, but irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Take a deep breath and focus all your attention to your breath - repeat 3 times. This will calm all the tension held throughout your body. Meditate on a caterpillar foregoing its complete transformation into a butterfly, and ask yourself, how could such a mechanism have possibly evolved?

a reply to: cooperton

People who don't agree with the theory of evolution are not inherently science deniers. Such thought reminds me of the Spanish inquisition - believe or die.

people who attempt to debunk or repurpose the theory of evolution for the purposes of alternative hypotheses dont typically use sound science to do so. but that doesnt stop them from trying.

Take a deep breath and focus all your attention to your breath - repeat 3 times. This will calm all the tension held throughout your body. Meditate on a caterpillar foregoing its complete transformation into a butterfly, and ask yourself, how could such a mechanism have possibly evolved?

i would much rather ask an expert that question. i trust professional conclusions, like those of bill nye or neil degrasse. remember that formal debate bill was in not long ago?

a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Barcs
Definition 1:
Biological evolution (aka theory of modern evolutionary synthesis) is about the change in frequency of alleles in a population, usually via genetic mutations and natural selection."

Definition 2:
"The increase of the frequency of a certain trait amongst a population, is what we are talking about and what science defines as biological evolution (or MS)."

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
1 & 2 are technically different. Which is it - traits or alleles?

originally posted by: Barcs
Come on, PE. traits are caused by alleles, they are virtually the same thing.

Traits are influenced by alleles, yes. But these two are most certainly not "virtually the same thing". Why would you think that? Unless you meant to say that genes and alleles are the same, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Again:
An allele is a version of a gene - a sequence of DNA (the genotype) - by definition. It's found on a chromosome. A trait is a physical characteristic (the phenotype) by definition. A genotype affects the resulting phenotype but they are not the same thing. You would never say that your fat chin or crooked nose is a gene or an allele. No of course not, that's just silly, yet that's exactly what you're saying.

originally posted by: Barcs
I even worded that first definition specifically for you knowing that you may be lurking and ready to pounce on a completely insignificant difference based on semantics.

How flattering that your reply to another poster was actually an attempt to bait me into an argument. Glad to know I'm in your head now every time you post. Regardless of this nonsense definition 2 is wrong.

It's not insignificant semantics either. These are technical biological terms with very specific definitions. If a real biologist regularly conflated these terms in his research he'd probably lose his funding, or his job.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Alleles are variations of genes. Genes are not traits. But these terms are often used interchangeably without anyone noticing or giving a sh*t.

originally posted by: Barcs
Nonsense. What exactly causes new traits to emerge? Does that have nothing to do with gene variations? Come on, PE. I thought you were better than this. The only difference between my 2 definitions is that one uses the official scientific term and one is more generalized for simplification purposes.

Not nonsense, you demonstrated my point exactly, by asserting that a trait is the same thing as an allele (gene). The fact remains they are NOT the same. Your questions are irrelevant.

I invite you cite a dictionary or an actual biologist that supports your assertions, and kindly post what you find here.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Traits are influenced by alleles, yes. But these two are most certainly not "virtually the same thing". Why would you think that? Unless you meant to say that genes and alleles are the same, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I love you, PE, you often make me think deeply on topics. But I honestly think you are nitpicking here.

Alleles are basically just different sequences for a gene that are dominant or recessive and affect gene expression. A trait is simply the expression of this allele on the physical organism. They are directly connected, you can't have one without the other. You are arguing a mere technicality. In reality when I say "trait", I'm trying to keep it simple because alleles determine traits. The 2 definitions are the same. You can't pass down alleles without traits and you can't pass down traits without alleles. They are a packaged deal. The truth is both definitions are correct.

It's not insignificant semantics either. These are technical biological terms with very specific definitions. If a real biologist regularly conflated these terms in his research he'd probably lose his funding, or his job.

Good thing I'm not a biologist or geneticist and I'm speaking mostly to folks that don't understand even the most basic fundamentals of science. You don't start teaching basic addition and subtraction by speaking of derivatives.

Not nonsense, you demonstrated my point exactly, by asserting that a trait is the same thing as an allele (gene). The fact remains they are NOT the same. Your questions are irrelevant.

I didn't say they were the same, I said virtually the same. Since traits are merely the physical expression of a dominant allele, it is silly to say that allele is correct and trait is not. They are both correct, just different ways to say the same thing.

originally posted by: cooperton
People who don't agree with the theory of evolution are not inherently science deniers. Such thought reminds me of the Spanish inquisition - believe or die.

People that disagree with the theory of evolution are indeed denying science. But you are right, they often cherry pick science, they don't discount it all. They believe what is convenient to them.

You'll never see them deny things like gravity, engineering, refrigeration, information technology, medicine, electricity, the combustion engine, cell theory, nuclear fusion, and a myriad of other things that were discovered or utilized via the scientific method. But when it comes to round earth, evolution, climate change science, age of earth/universe, it is always flat out denial with no explanations that directly address the scientific research.

So they either deny or cherry pick science. Why dismiss evolution as dogma, but not cell theory? Intelligent design pretty much relies on cell complexity, but you accept the science behind cell theory that shows that. Why?

originally posted by: Barcs
I honestly think you are nitpicking here.

If by 'nitpicking' you mean correcting erroneous statements, then yep I'm a nitpick'n mofo.

originally posted by: Barcs
The truth is both definitions are correct

No man, they're not.

That an allele has a relation to the trait which it influences does not give any reason to think they are the same thing. You would need to understand the process involved in expressing the trait (i.e. transcription, RNA splicing, export, translation) to fully grasp what I'm saying. For instance, no one would ever claim that each of the mechanisms involved in the expression of a gene/allele to its end product (the trait) are "virtually the same thing". Just like no one would ever claim that a match is virtually the same as the fire it causes.

originally posted by: Barcs
I didn't say they were the same, I said virtually the same. Since traits are merely the physical expression of a dominant allele, it is silly to say that allele is correct and trait is not. They are both correct, just different ways to say the same thing.

Who is playing the semantic games now?

Like I stated before, please post the scientific resources that support your claim that traits are the same as genes. Or that their definitions are simply "different ways of saying the same thing".

The theory of evolution ( your beloved MES) was formulated in terms of allele frequency, not traits. You know, population genetics.

But please prove me wrong If I am.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

They aren't the same thing, they are a packaged deal. It is 2 ways to refer to the same process. You act as if allele frequency has nothing to do with the frequency of traits on the offspring when they are directly connected. If you pass down alleles you pass down traits. You are being silly here. I've never heard anybody complain so much about simplifying a definition for folks that don't know what an allele is. If I was conversing with biologists and geneticists about mechanisms and details, I wouldn't simplify it, BUT THIS OBVIOUSLY IS NOT THE CASE.

I'll say it one more time. Alleles DIRECTLY determine traits. It is flat out nonsense to grasp for straws on the level in which you are. Your argument is basically like saying. "NO! Your car didn't get you from NY to Texas. Your combustion engine did! OMG you totally don't understand how cars work!" You are indeed arguing semantics... again. Just stop.

Evolution:
Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.

www.nas.edu...

If I told you that evolution was about common ancestry or descent with modification would you argue against that as well? There are many different ways to refer to evolution. Some definitions simply say "change in the gene pool".

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains that living things change through time as a result of genetic mutations and natural selection for the most adaptive traits

a reply to: Barcs

See you keep changing your argument around. What's that word you always like to use? Oh yes, equivocation

Your claim was essentially that genotype and phenotype are interchangeable terms. That's wrong. And you're suggesting that these two are always directly linked by saying they are "packaged deals". That's not always true. So if pointing you out on these misunderstandings is grasping at straws then so be it. I'm only looking out for the reader who may be taking you seriously.

Hint: not all traits have a direct genetic component or link to an allele.
Hint: trait distribution in a population does not necessarily equate to the same distribution in alleles/genes.

Why? Perhaps answering the below will help

Question: how many traits can be influenced by more than one gene (polygenic)?
Question: how many traits can any one gene influence (pleiotropy)?
Question: what about non-allelic genes that can express phenotypes of other genes(epistasis)?
Question: have you considered the epistatic relationships between genes?
Question: what is population genetics?

These questions are for you, not me.

All you have to do is provide the sources that state alleles (genotypes) and traits (phenotypes) are [virtually] the same thing or interchangeable. And that population genetics, the cornerstone of MES, is formulated in terms of phenotypes (traits).

Just provide the sources Barcs, not opinions disguised as fact of the matter. If I'm shown to be wrong then I'll gladly eat my shoes.

a reply to: Barcs

You'll never see them deny things like gravity, engineering, refrigeration, information technology, medicine, electricity

So you understand what gravity is? Funny that; since even scientists are still looking for that "graviton"

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs

See you keep changing your argument around. What's that word you always like to use? Oh yes, equivocation

Your claim was essentially that genotype and phenotype are interchangeable terms. That's wrong. And you're suggesting that these two are always directly linked by saying they are "packaged deals". That's not always true. So if pointing you out on these misunderstandings is grasping at straws then so be it. I'm only looking out for the reader who may be taking you seriously.

I haven't changed anything around. You are putting words in my mouth, I didn't say they were interchangeable. I didn't say they were the same thing. Is a car the same thing as the combustion engine? I said that I SIMPLIFIED the definition for folks that don't understand what an allele is. Passing down traits is the simple way to say passing down alleles. Without the traits, there is no selection, which is a big part of evolution.

Can you show me an example of a dominant allele for a gene that is not expressed as a trait, without getting into epigenetics and other lesser understood mechanisms?

Hint: not all traits have a direct genetic component or link to an allele.

Example of trait that isn't caused by the allele or gene?

Hint: trait distribution in a population does not necessarily equate to the same distribution in alleles/genes.

Really? So natural selection selects for alleles and not traits? You lost me here, bud. Sorry I have no idea why you are nitpicking to this extreme level. This is a discussion of evolution for dummies, not for experts. If you want to debate extended synthesis, make a post in the science section and we'll discuss.

Question: how many traits can be influenced by more than one gene (polygenic)?
Question: how many traits can any one gene influence (pleiotropy)?
Question: what about non-allelic genes that can express phenotypes of other genes(epistasis)?
Question: have you considered the epistatic relationships between genes?
Question: what is population genetics?

LMAO. I KNEW you were going to start reaching toward epigenetics as if it's your knight in shining armor. You could have saved us both a lot of time by mentioning this ahead of time instead of nitpicking definitions that describe the very basics of a process that is complicated.

All you have to do is provide the sources that state alleles (genotypes) and traits (phenotypes) are [virtually] the same thing or interchangeable. And that population genetics, the cornerstone of MES, is formulated in terms of phenotypes (traits).

That's not my claim. For last time, we are talking about describing evolution as a whole, generally. We are not talking about specific mechanisms and the exact way that every detail works. To describe that, we'd need a definition 5 pages long at minimum. It's just another way to describe it. Natural Selection can't select for a trait that isn't expressed. It can have a neutral affect in a population, but what you are describing is much different and I'm not getting into extended synthesis in a conversation where we are just looking to define evolution for folks that do not understand it. I'm not going to argue this anymore. If you didn't understand what I said, then that's on you. I've clearly described what was meant by the statement and how it was applied.

I was generalizing for newbs. If somebody asked, "What makes a car run?" and somebody answered "gasoline," would they be wrong because they didn't describe every single step of the process converting that gasoline to combustion energy to move the car? No. They would be generalizing and simplifying for the non mechanically inclined. That doesn't make it wrong.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Barcs

You'll never see them deny things like gravity, engineering, refrigeration, information technology, medicine, electricity

So you understand what gravity is? Funny that; since even scientists are still looking for that "graviton"

The difference is I don't deny gravity exists. That's the point. Many folks deny evolution even exists, while cherry picking numerous other scientific theories and accepting them as fact, but evolution is seen by bible literalists as some giant mega conspiracy, but cell theory is somehow perfectly sound when they both utilize similar methods of observation and study.

a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Barcs
I didn't say they were the same thing.

Then what's this:

originally posted by: Barcs
Come on, PE. traits are caused by alleles, they are virtually the same thing.

Misspeak?

originally posted by: Barcs
Can you show me an example of a dominant allele for a gene that is not expressed as a trait, without getting into epigenetics and other lesser understood mechanisms?

Pink roses are the result of incomplete dominance, when roses containing the dominant red allele are crossed with roses containing the recessive white allele they produce pink (see also snap dragons, carnations, and tulips.) This happens when the dominant allele in a heterozygous pair does not fully express its trait. It also occurs in animals and humans.

There is also co-dominance, when both alleles in a heterozygous pair are neither dominant or recessive, so both traits are expressed together. i.e there isn’t a single dominant trait. For example, blood type group ABO.

And then there are traits influenced by multiple alleles (3 or more), polymorphism, phenotypic plasticity, pleiotropy etc… You can look all this stuff up yourself if you really care to learn something.Wiki

Addressing common misconceptions

Dominance is not inherent: one allele can be dominant to a second allele, recessive to a third allele, and codominant to a fourth.

Dominance is unrelated to the nature of the phenotype itself, that is, whether it is regarded as "normal" or "abnormal," "standard" or "nonstandard," "healthy" or "diseased," "stronger" or "weaker," or more or less extreme. A dominant allele may account for any of these trait types.

Dominance does not determine whether an allele is deleterious, neutral or advantageous. However, selection works through differential reproduction of phenotypes, and dominance affects the exposure of alleles in phenotypes, and hence the rate of change in allele frequencies under selection. Deleterious recessive alleles may persist in a population at low frequencies, with most copies carried in heterozygotes, at no cost to those individuals. These rare recessives are the basis for many hereditary genetic disorders.

Dominance is also unrelated to the distribution of alleles in the population. Some dominant alleles are extremely common, while others are extremely rare. The most common allele in a population may be recessive when combined with some rare variants.

originally posted by: Barcs
Example of trait that isn't caused by the allele?

Look up examples of Non-Mendelian inheritance patterns

originally posted by: Barcs
Really? So natural selection selects for alleles and not traits?

Depending on which biologist/scientist you ask and their area of expertise the answer to this question varies widely. Yes, no, maybe, both, sometimes, etc kind of stuff.... It’s a problem, but that's evolutionary theory for you

originally posted by: Barcs
LMAO. I KNEW you were going to start reaching toward epigenetics as if it's your savior.

Epistasis has nothing to do with epigenetics pal.

originally posted by: Barcs
That's not my claim. For last time, we are talking about describing evolution as a whole, generally.

If you didn't understand what I said, then that's on you. I've clearly describe what was meant by the statement and how it was applied.

Recall once again that you framed your 2 “definitions” in reference to the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis which is explicit in it’s explanation of what evolution is – a distribution of alleles in a population . Alleles are not traits, they are genes, nor do they always have a direct one on one relationship with each other. This is a fact, no matter what you think or how inconsequential you believe it to be. I know you always feel the need to “dumb it down”, which is nice, but in doing so you're saying the wrong things.

ETA

originally posted by: Barcs
If somebody asked, "What makes a car run?" and somebody answered "gasoline," would they be wrong because they didn't describe every single step of the process converting that gasoline to combustion energy to move the car?

No, but based on what you said: that "alleles are virtually the same as traits" - it might be more like saying the gas is virtually the same as the car. Not a great comp I admit, but you get the picture.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

None of that makes my definition wrong.

Again, I dumbed it down, I wasn't going for exact biological precision on all mechanisms. It's a simple definition, why are you so adamant about this? I guess many of you consider it a big accomplishment to prove me wrong.

BUT.. here is the nail in the coffin for your argument:

You did not explain how natural selection applies to alleles only. The pink rose example is bad because it requires a human to cross the plants and create a hybrid, this does not occur naturally, the selection is forced. The problem with what you are saying is that natural selection does not select for alleles, it selects for traits. Natural selection is a huge part of evolution, and determines precisely what direction it heads and which traits help survival and procreation. You are ignoring one of the cornerstones of evolution (natural selection) in order to support your contention that my definition is wrong. Traits are a very important part of the process, and natural selection affects which traits become more frequent among the population, which in turn affects the alleles. I honestly don't care that it doesn't ALWAYS happen this way and there are other mechanisms involved as well. It was a simple definition that you are blowing out of proportion.

it would be equivalent to saying the gas is virtually the same as the car.

No, it is the equivalent of saying that gas is what makes the car move. Because it directly causes the combustion engine to produce energy.

a reply to: Barcs

I guess many of you consider it a big accomplishment to prove me wrong.

Say what? Just because a handful of mooks keep starring your replies does not make you some kind of expert on the matter.

I answered your questions directly. That will just ignore or simply refuse to understand the facts is not my issue.

Sorry, but you're not knowledgeable enough to be dumbing anything down for anyone. Leave that to the experts, which you my friend are most certainly not.

Good thing this wasn't a discussion about epistasis.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I never claimed to be an expert or authority on biology or genetics. I'm not a professor or a scientist, nor do I claim to be as knowledgeable as one. I just understand how evolution works and think denial of it is ridiculous in today's world. I let the scientists handle the science, which is why I had no problem reaching out to a geneticist for answers earlier in the thread when I and others didn't completely understand the argument presented. And what do stars have to do with anything? A handful of "mooks" keep starring your replies as well (and I bet I could correctly name 2 of them).

Sorry, but saying traits is just as valid as saying alleles in the big picture of evolution. I know they aren't the same thing, but you just ignored my natural selection problem again. If alleles are not expressed as traits, they cannot be selected for. Are you trying to say that genetic drift alone is responsible for all the diversity we see with life on earth and natural selection is no longer an important factor? You've hinted at this before when asking how we can determine whether natural selection or genetic drift is responsible for certain changes. Is this where you are going?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs

I guess many of you consider it a big accomplishment to prove me wrong.

Say what? Just because a handful of mooks keep starring your replies does not make you some kind of expert on the matter.

I answered your questions directly. That will just ignore or simply refuse to understand the facts is not my issue.

Sorry, but you're not knowledgeable enough to be dumbing anything down for anyone. Leave that to the experts, which you my friend are most certainly not.

Good thing this wasn't a discussion about epistasis.

being uninformed has never stopped anyone from having an opinion. this thread is proof of that.

a reply to: Barcs

Look, I don't mean to sound like an a88hole, because I actually appreciate you as a member here, but I'm not too sure you really do understand how evolution works - at least in terms of the MES. This is made evident by your insistence that shifts in "trait" frequencies in a population are a measure of evolution.

Evolution CAN NOT be measured by changes in physical/behavioral characteristics (or traits) of a population because the morphological, physiological, behavioural, phenological aspects of organisms are very plastic. i.e they can and do change within the lifetime of the organism. This is why I asked you to look up phenotypic plasticity and polyphenism. This is why I asked you to look up pleiotropy.

Given this fact, measuring the differences in traits within a population can not always tell us if there were actual changes to the underlying genotype as well - which is what matters most to modern evolutionary theory.

Why? Because there is not a linear relationship (we've discussed this before) between genotype/phenotype. Organisms of the same species can have very different traits depending on their development and environments. This is why evolution can only be measured by shifts to the underlying genetic components. IOW, populations don't evolve unless they undergo genetic changes [1]. At least according to the MES, which is what you referred to. And then there's epigenetics to muddy things up, which I know you really hate to think about.

Now about Natural Selection. I agree NS must act on phenotypes since that is what engages with the environment. This much makes logical sense to me. However, you may recall my earlier issues with this because of the same reasons I just mentioned above. Mainly, that there isn't a gene for each trait. It is very rare that one gene will code for just a single trait and that's it. The reality is that multiple genes act in concert to express a trait or multiple traits simultaneously (recall epistasis as one example). And multiple unrelated traits can be influenced by just one gene and environmental effects.

So with this in mind, how do we determine that selection for a "beneficial trait" equals selection of the underlying gene? And how do we determine with any certainty that the trait you're observing came about by selection or drift? Can you answer this?

It's true, many [molecular] biologists think that more onus should be placed on drift. They seemingly adhere to the neutral theory of evolution. This only goes to show that there are clearly opposing views on this and my question about whether it's NS or GD is valid. This does not mean that NS does not happen though. I just think there's no concrete way to know either way in most instances.

Oh and pink roses are wild, not that it actually matters within the context of what incomplete dominance is. Incomplete dominance occurs regardless of whether it is with pink roses or not, and regardless if they were artificially selected for or not. Humans don't control the mechanisms that determine dominance of an allele. Although I'm sure' we're trying.