Summations Only

Total nonsense. That is your personal definition of evolution, but it is not a definition that exists from the TOE. Evolution is the variation of the frequency of traits in a population from generation to generation. Speciation is one possible result of evolution but it is not the only one.

Seriously. Is repeating your denial all you've got? I've demonstrated by citing Darwin's work exactly what his theory was. You need to do better than simply saying, "Is too!" and repeating your own assertions.But you cannot do any better, can you?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Removed in favor of Dr. Adequate's covering of the same ground in much greater detail.Edited by NoNukes, : Superfluous. No need to dogpile.

Your comments about something that is not the theory of evolution are irrelevant. But what makes you look like a buffoon is claiming that your ideas are the same as Darwin's when faced with the text from Darwin's work. Can you at least stop doing that?Further, if you don't intend to talk about the theory of evolution, then you cannot establish that it is incorrect. We all agree that your proposition describes something that does not work. We can find that expressed in Darwin's work. We've already done that. The problem is that by never getting beyond your point, you fail to address why the theory of evolution is wrong. Your current argument is not even being disputed. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's a start on the definition. But evolution includes changes that do not lead to speciation as well as speciation, so it does not follow that changes in allele frequency alone based on the given scenario can lead to speciation through simple mixing and matching of a sub set of the existing genes. You are simply reciting your own claim and not something for which their is evidence or a mechanism. And since there is no given mechanism, no matter what data Dr. Adequate provides, you are never going to be able to make a point this way. You are setting Dr. Adequate on a journey that won't end anywhere.Meanwhile you are ignoring the fact that speciation under your speciied conditions is not inevitable, and in fact is not what happens at least most of the time. Instead what can result after the split is a combination where the sub group has most of the diversity of the parent group, and gains additional diversity over time through mutations. Speciation can then be (at least potentially) based on new traits rather than segregation of the old traits and it is easier to see how such things can lead to genetic incompatibility in the previous group.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This thread is like all Dawn Bertot threads. Dawn Bertot's logic and reasoning are generally to loose to make for adult conversation. But Dawn's most coherent rambling involved his same old theme that every kind of investigation and attempt to find answers must be considered science.Which I think means that Dawn does score at least one point. It is pretty clear that folks like Dawn have not abandoned the discussion because they understand that science loving folks have won any argument. Dawn is able to see himself as having held his own.Probably all for the best. We really don't want these guys to quit do we?