It's not a matter of "not enough"
Well, are there enough, or aren't there? If you didn't mean to say there weren't enough, then why did you say there weren't enough?
PLEASE not bacteria
If you have an objection to the bacteria studies, you certainly haven't told anybody what it is. Until such time as you're able to express exactly
why bacterial studies,
long used as model organisms for the study of genetics, are somehow invalid here, they constitute a large line of evidence that you've simply chosen not to address - to pretend like it doesn't even exist, in fact.
Every time I say this I think to myself but that whole idea is wrong anyway, making up for losses is silly when it's the losses that bring about the new traits.
Losses don't bring about new traits. Something is not
new simply because it is what is
left over.
If I have a full refrigerator, and I throw out all the fresh fruits and vegetables and simply mix together two containers-worth of leftovers, I have
not made a new meal. We're still eating leftovers.
New alleles are
required for new traits, because over enough time, given a constant number of alleles, all possible allelic sexual combinations are eventually expressed. Simple statistics. You eventually get every possible phenotype just at random, so reducing alleles doesn't get you anything new. Maybe it gets you more of something, maybe less, but neither of those are
new.
Genuinely new traits require genuinely new alleles, and mutation is the source of new alleles.
The link about the apparent recovery of alleles in cod is the sort of evidence that is needed, and I'm still waiting to figure out what is actually going on there.
How are you ever going to figure out what that article says if you immediately reject any explanation of it that appears to support evolution? If you're waiting around for someone to explain it to you in a way that undercuts evolution, you're going to be waiting a long time. Evolution is accepted by scientists because the evidence
supports it, so when evidence is presented for it, you're simply not going to find a way, except fallaciously or dishonestly, to use that evidence against evolution.