A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument

You've been cautioned enough times for accusing people of not understanding your argument. See you in 24 hours.

You have stated a number of times that a just formed species would not be homogeneous but would "get scattered phenotypes from the introduction of enough mutations to correct the loss of genetic diversity." No one sees why "scattered phenotypes" would be an expected outcome. The next time you make this point you must support it with evidence and argument, else I will suspend you again.

I wasn't going to respond to the substance of your message because as moderator I'm not a participant in the discussion, and since Taq responded to you I decided to withhold my comments until you replied and I saw what direction the subtopic took. But you didn't reply to Taq, so I'm cautioning you now, again, to refrain from propounding arguments that are absent evidence. It is fine "to get a creationist perspective into the picture," but only with evidence accompanied by argumentation that places it in a rational and comprehensible context.You presented no evidence of overt design by a designer, or of an initial Creation event where the designs happened. When you said that embryological development "has absolutely nothing to do with any supposed evolutionary history" you provided no counterevidence to all the evidence of a relationship between embryological development and evolutionary connections. There was no argument or evidence for why fossils should be more common than they are.Please, no replies to this message.

Until you support your contention that mutations play no roll or an insignificant role in evolution, please stop making or referencing the claim. There will not be a discussion of a fantasy world where mutations either don't exist or aren't relevant in any significant way until you demonstrate with evidence that that's the reality. I'm agreeable to any administrative action that leads to more open and constructive discussion.

You're still ignoring mutation. Even if you're right about the null or minimal role of mutation, you haven't demonstrated that, while much evidence that mutations play a significant role in evolution have been presented many times in many threads. I'd would like to avoid having yet another thread where the issue of mutation is not addressed. Let's see if I've got this straight. Your Internet comes over your phone line, and your Internet provider wants to change the modem. Is that right? If not, such as he's changing you over from DSL to something else, ignore the rest.The phone line comes out of a wall plate behind a heavy bookcase that is behind yet more stuff, maybe heavy furniture. Moving the furniture is turning into a major project. Am I right so far? If not, ignore the rest.It would be very easy to take the end of your phone line where it comes out from behind your bookcase and just plug in the new modem. But since it isn't easy, that must mean the phone line doesn't emerge from behind your bookcase. Your modem must be buried behind your bookcase, and an Ethernet cable must run from behind your bookcase into your computer, or maybe it's wireless. The phone line from your wall plate to your modem must be too short too pull the modem out from behind your bookcase, or maybe it's wireless and you can't reach it or get a grip on it. Am I right so far? If not, ignore what follows.If any of the above stuff is wrong then you may not need to move furniture, but you'll have to provide more information. But otherwise, yes, it looks like you're going to have to move the bookcase to get at the modem to replace it.

With nothing quoted and not much elaboration this is very difficult to understand, but in any case, running back over the message trail I found it leads to your Message 199 which included a statement about reduced genetic diversity as an inevitable trend. You still have to support this.

HBD's Message 210 was fairly long, so there's no way anyone can be sure what "this" is. Please either use the quoting facility or describe the point you're addressing. From the Wikipedia page on speciation:

quote:

---

There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric.

---

Allopatric speciation is when a population "splits into two geographically isolated populations."At the other end of the spectrum, sympatric speciation is when species evolve from "a single ancestral species all occupying the same geographic location."In other words, the Wikipedia page on speciation does *not* say that "isolation of a portion of a population is...the only path to speciation," at least not if you by "isolation" you mean geographic isolation. It says there can be a wide range in the degree of geographic isolation, from completely separate and isolated all the way to located in the exact same place.

Hi Faith,You're not the only one having trouble following these long posts that cover a lot of territory, but one thing in HBD's last post was both clear and straightforward. It's something that though it's been asked many times here, it's never been answered: I suggest addressing just this for now.

Please argue from evidence, not speculation. If you have no real-world evidence for an idea then the idea should not be presented in this or any of the science threads. Things that happen leave behind evidence. What we know of the past depends upon how much of that evidence has survived to the present. There is no hard and fast rule that "ALL theories about the ancient past are 'making things up'". If you insist on operating under that "rule" then please stop contributing to this thread.

Please do not make claims sans evidence. You cannot legitimately request that people rethink their ideas in light of your claims when you've presented no evidence for your claims. For example, you postulate a mutational mechanism that efficiently produces only useful mutations, but you present no evidence for such a mutational mechanism.If you present proper evidence, as moderator I will insure that participants give it proper attention.

Seriously?