You said you had no idea what the logistic equation had to do with natural selection, but you believed that human populations didn't show a correlation with the

You said you had no idea what the logistic equation had to do with natural selection, but you believed that human populations didn't show a correlation with the function. I provided the links only so you would have a way to find out how wrong that was, nothing else. But you're one of those posters who can't seem to stick to a single topic. As to that topic, I can't believe that you're still unable to see that a stable population supports classic natural selection. In such a population, who survives is determined by their fitness, just when the population's size is changing. The fact that a population's size is stable or changing is irrelevant to natural selection -- it is unaffected. On that basis, population rate of change, and natural selection, are orthogonal factors. The only way a stable population would interfere with natural selection is if there was no reproduction taking place, no births or deaths, and that is certainly not what a stable population means.