I am in no way in favor of evolution, however, strictly from a hypothetical point of view, if evolution is true then there would be virtually a near limitless abundance of genetic variability.
I'm sort of curious what you mean by "variability." Like, what is it, and how would we measure it? Do you consider it a property of individuals or of species or populations? Is it different than diversity?
I don't know if you can really quantify variability in linear terms
Then I don't see how talking about "more" or "less" of it makes any sense at all. As a hint, if your argument relies on your opponents showing you an increase in a quality you've just defined as unmeasurable, you're being pretty obviously disingenuous.
The question is whether enough favorable mutations x natural selection can support or account for the amount of diversity we currently see found on earth.
Well, wait. Are we talking about diversity or variability?
I know what diversity is. I don't know what variability is, and the questions I asked were designed to help me understand what it is. But you've largely side-stepped them, or admitted you don't know either, so I don't see what possible role "variability" could possibly play in this discussion.
How then can we account for all of the diversity we find?
Well, for one thing, individuals possess a lot more mutations than one single nucleotide substitution per generation. Where did you get such a ridiculously low mutation rate?
Secondly, sexual reproduction means that a population can be fixing a lot more than one single mutation per generation. Your Holden example is perhaps the worst-case scenario for allelic fixation, but he misrepresents it as the best. Another disingenuous argument from science's opponents. (Ted Holden is a well-knwon creationist dissembler, and TalkOrigins has a whole page devoted to exposing the bad faith arguments he regularly puts forth. I wouldn't rely on him a source, were I you.)
And whats worse, you cannot in this case obscure it with another darwinistic mantra - "sexual selection"!
If you dispute that sexual selection occurs, then why do male peacocks have bright displays, but the females do not?
And why didn't you respond to my earlier remarks on the subject? You're acting like glib responses are the only thing you're getting, but that's simply because you're ignoring more substantial replies. Are you here to debate or to take potshots?
But your answer as usually doesn't explain coloration neither of them (by breeding you donn't create new allele).
Mutation creates new alleles; this is well-known. Artificial selection then amplifies the frequency of those alleles until a population that reliably breeds true for the trait can be created.
Michael claimed that there is no need for color for underground species so I have put forward red radish.
Which was bred to be red, by humans. I don't see how that's relevant to selection in the wild. It's like asking "what's the evolutionary advantage of red pistachios?" None whatsoever, because pistachios aren't red; they're dyed that way by nut roasters.
Of cours we know also white radish and also spicy white horseradish, garlic, leeks which are somehow white too.
You might have noticed that almost all roots are white in the plant kingdom, because they contain no chloroplasts. So what color would they be, besides white, which is the absence of color?
Something that is much more closed to "internal forces", conception that are darwinists afraid of.
Your arguments really don't make any sense. I suppose it's a combination of your language issues and your nearly complete ignorance of basic biology.
Take my word for it - in subtractive color models (pigmentation is a subtractive color model), white is the absence of color.
That's why snow is white, even though water is clear; that's why ground glass is white, even though a pane of glass is clear. In pigmentive color modeling, white is the absence of color. You can look it up in any text on color theory if you don't believe me. (Don't get confused by the fact that in projective, additive color models, black is the absence of color. Those models don't apply to pigmentation.)
But root vegetables we are speaking of have many colors, not only white:
Again, carrots were bred for those colors; moreover, root vegetables are a special case because their roots not only take nutrients and water from the soil, but store starches and nutrients as well. That has an effect on color.
I will repeat it if you don't underestand me - such coloration have probably no selective advantage, because no one see it.
Again, you're talking about plants that humans have bred to have certain characteristics, including colors. Your attempt to tie this to natural selection is meaningless, because natural selection isn't being used to explain it. Natural selection explains the characteristics of organisms in the wild, not the characteristics they have because humans bred them that way.
Do you have on mind that red color of radish, carot etc was not present in material people started to breed?
I told you before; carrots are orange because they were bred to be orange by Dutch plant breeders. They weren't orange before. (As I recall, the original carrot stock had a deep reddish-purple color, like a beet.)
I still don't understand how Dutch plant breeding has anything to do with natural selection. Can you elaborate?