The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

What "happened" to it? It's still there (pace your slight misstatement) and one day we hope that you'll understand it.Again I would urge you to get your hands on some basic text about genetics and read it.

When everything else you say seems to be a dirty muddle of obfuscation and lies.I wonder if the (as you see it) blinding clarity of your conclusion and the (as everyone else sees it) filthy mess of your arguments could be related in some way?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You mean the Wikipedia article which reads: I sure hope you won't have the temerity to argue with Wikipedia. It's practically the voice of God, after all.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, you didn't.I am very sorry if anyone thought I was imputing any such thing. I edited the article myself --- after you quoted it. I had thought that that would have been obvious ...I was trying to make a point (which I thought was funny) about the use of Wikipedia as a gold standard.Once again, I apologize if this confused anyone.

I am speechless, but fortunately it is not necessary for me to say anything in order to mock you. Your own statements are quite sufficient.

Actually, it doesn't. It would be accurate to say that initially the genetic diversity of the daughter population is less than that of the parent population. ... then you have a marvelous opportunity to commit a trivial fallacy.Just because I have to stoop to go through the door does not mean that I cannot subsequently climb the stairs.

Well of course. I think of this as the "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. If you question, separately, the people who think that he is wearing clothes, they're not going to agree on what color they are.Still, as Bluejay pointed out, Flood apologetics must all suffer from some problems in common, because they're all trying to defend the same nonsensical myth.

Now that I've explained my joke, I guess that you're the only person not laughing.If you are really going to take Wikipedia as the gold standard for truth, such that if wikipedia doesn't explicitly mention something, then that thing doesn't exist --- then may I point out that Wikipedia does now explicitly mention mutations. Because I edited it to do so.Who the heck do you suppose writes Wikipedia? God Almighty? No, it's schmucks like me.Do you want to argue with the Wikipedia article as it now stands? Then feel free to do so.

So, I was wondering, are there any limits on your fantasy genetics?Is there, for example, anything to stop all mammals from evolving from one "packed" mammal, one supermammal?Remember that the goal of creationists is to deny the obvious fact that evolution has happened in the past, not to deny the obvious fact that it is happening now and that it will happen in the future.In your fantasy world there seems to be nothing preventing evolution from having happened in the past just as scientists assert that it has done. In the end, all your falsehoods and fantasies do not seem to give you a way to deny the very fact that you want to deny. Your bullshit would restrict the possibility of evolution in the future, but the fact that you want to deny is that it has happened in the past.

But the point that I was making is that your ridiculous fantasies about genetics do not rule out macroevolution either. The way that you are being wrong about genetics does not actually rule out the inescapable fact that you are so desperate to deny.

"Right"? No. Pathetically, stupidly, laughably wrong.Please, please, please just go and learn something about genetics.Did this never occur to you? You wish to lecture us on a subject which you have never studied. And you must be aware of this. You must know that you have never studied genetics, you're not actually insane. You're not delusional. Therefore, you know that you have never studied genetics.

Whereas the facts about genetics make macroevolution inevitable.What's your point?

No you didn't.If you would like to pretend that some post on this thread gave you this crazy idea, then I should like to see you actually cite the post that inspired that delusion. I enjoy a good laugh.

You don't know enough about genetics to know whether you can twist and distort it in order to make a pathetic bogus argument. I'm sure that you would if you could, but in fact while the grown-ups are discussing polyploidy you don't even know what error you need to commit in order to be wrong. Because you have never studied genetics and you have no idea what we're talking about.

So, yes, your contemptible ignorance of genetics prevented you from understanding what was being explained to you. As I thought.What's the good of people spoonfeeding you information if you can't digest it?