A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Breeding is not a surrogate for evolution.This is as stupid as you using electricity so you should easily be able to design a nuclear power plant. Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Rare on whose scale?The mutations that occur in the reproductive cells are the only mutations that we are talking about. They are the only ones involved with evolution. Yes, they add to the variation that is already in the genome, creating a new allele. Nope, this is incorrect. We don't need anything, but what we do get is incremental changes (mutations) in the genome and phenotype that survive in succeeding generations. Some genome/phenotypes in a population will produce fewer or no offspring and will be eliminated by natural selection.Mutations are random, but natural selection is not because it selects the best reproducers. Well, that's because you have the scenario wrong. Mainly because such a random event is not how it happens. This is incorrect. It is not a mutation here and a mutation there. If we use humans as an example, there are on average 100 mutations in every individual in a population. If we take the population of reproducers as 1 billion people, they have a combined 100 BILLION NEW MUTATIONS in just their generation of our population. If you take the whole human population there are 750 BILLION NEW MUTATIONS right now.In just 1 million years that is a humongous number of mutations in a population. Now I realize that a population size will always fluctuate but to pretend that there are just a few mutations here or there is delusional. Really? We would love to see you calculate that.And what are the organizing powers of billions of years. This is a concept I am completely unfamiliar with.

This is your problem right here. This is total bullshit. More bullshit. The evidence shows you are never going to get it. Breeding is not a surrogate for evolution.

And humans remain mammals and humans remain vertebrates. What's your point?

Breeding is not a surrogate for evolution.

Breeding is not a surrogate for evolution.

So close...I thought she was going to get it, but then the noise spiked.

I pointed this out to her clear back in Message 25

How would we know what "your usual idea of a mutation" is? Half the time you insist that mutations do not even exist. And why would we pay any attention to what "your usual idea of a mutation" is, when we have data from scientists who study and understand genetics and biology and evolution.In the papers I have read about it, it fits my idea of mutation perfectly.Until your fantasy scenario actually describes and explains what is actually seen in the genetics of various organisms no one is going to pay any attention to it.

Yep, you called it. It's not that funny any more. Pointless.

Another big one is she cannot explain the pattern of endogenous retroviral (ERV) insertions seen in genomes of most organisms that also matches the nested hierarchy.

Great answer!

Pretty homogeneous is hardly precise or scientific. I bet that you cannot find a single biologist specializing in the study of any of the organisms you mention that will agree with you. How many individuals of these creatures have you studied to make this determination? Of course. Most of the variable features in the members of a species are not visible characters, but rather variations in metabolic processes and internal structure.You, sitting in front of your computer are hardly likely to notice the range of visible variation in the few photos of individual creatures you see on the screen. Polar bears are all white is about as far as you can go.