reply to scilosopher What I took offense to in your post was your assertion that I was using my "experience," by which I guess that you mean my education, as a criteria for accepting my misconceptions (Your quote: "Everyone has misconceptions including me, please don't put forward your experience as a criteria for accepting yours."). Sounds like an attack to me. You also suggest that I not correct misinterpretations of evolutionary biology. Well, that was my intention all along, as I stated in my first post. I pointed out that there were misconceptions, that I could correct, but I would not do so unsolicited. I there fore thought that you either didn't read my post, or that you misunderstood it. I can think of no third alternative. Lack of selective pressures or loss of selective pressures from environment or species interaction can lead to loss of gene function (loss of selective constraint on a gene will allow it to freely mutate). Examples are pseudogenes and some genes of the MHC. This loss of function is evolution. I can think of no examples where the following happens: Your quote: "To be clear, even elimination of selection for a certain trait alters the selective pressures on a species and therefore is effectively a selective pressure of its own (ie [sic] one could argue that removing a constraint could speed spread of a closely linked, but improved version of a gene. Essentially an effective pressure for the new and improved version)." If you have examples of this (real ones, i.e. published) please pass them on. Fitness is a relative term. Simply, it is the amount of one's genetic composition passed on to the next generation relative to the rest of the population. In most eukaryotes, this means reproduction, but there are exceptions (e.g. inclusive fitness). I didn't attack you or question your intelligence, but as I stated, you either didn't read my first post or didn't understand what I meant.