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

Or the addition of a new trait due to a mutation.

You have consistently shown you are anti-science and have no regard for scientific evidence. Additionally, you are consistently wrong in what you claim.Why should we give credence to anything you post here?Why should we even bother showing you evidence when you just hand-wave away any evidence that contradicts your religious beliefs?And why should we even bother reading your posts? (We must be masochistic or something.)

My post, at least, has described your posting history here accurately.You are anti-science and anti-evidence, and have admitted that on many occasions.With that anti-science anti-evidence approach, you have no business in the Science Forums.You have made your position very clear, so don't complain when we call you on it.

It is not "opinion" that is involved here, it is belief.Belief, to creationists, overrides evidence and everything else.To creationists, belief does indeed alter facts, and it alters them in any manner that is necessary to reconcile them with said belief. It alters scientific definitions as well. To the degree that facts and definitions are not altered (or a punster might say, "altared"), those facts and definitions are ignored, denied, misrepresented, stretched, or obfuscated.Heinlein noted that "Belief gets in the way of learning." To that we might add, "Belief gets in the way of thinking."

There is no telling what changes in the environment, or other factors, a population will experience through time. Stuff happens, and always has...A population with a greater diversity has an advantage--there is a greater chance that some members of that population will be adequately-adapted to the new conditions.The narrower the range of diversity, the more chance that environmental or other changes can cause an extinction due to the population's poor adaptation to the new conditions.That is what can "prevent evolution from occurring." Narrow range of diversity and rapidly changing environmental/other conditions more likely leads to extinction than evolution.A wide diversity of alleles/traits means those same rapidly changing environmental/other conditions more likely allow one end or the other of the bell curve to survive and reproduce, rather than causing extinction of the whole population.And if only one end of the bell curve is able to survive and reproduce, there is significant change from the original parent population.Hey, sounds like evolution to me!

There is no reason to surmise what might or might happen "When animals came off the ark," as that is an entirely unsupported premise.You might just as well speculate on what Hamlet would have done or not done under some particular circumstances.In either case you are engaging in a thought experiment, or more accurately, literary criticism as both what happened during or after the flood and how Hamlet would have acted or reacted are speculations about fictional events.Both are amenable to thought experiments or literary criticism, but one should not confuse either of those with reality.

We'd probably be banned after a couple of posts over there.