Evolution falsifies God/s?

As it has been shown that evolution happens, and that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for that, is that close enough?And parts of Genesis were disproved prior to Darwin and his theory. The idea of a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago was disproved about 200 years ago by the early Christian geologists who were seeking to support that flood.

Do you have a substantive reply to my post?If so, I'd like to see it.Otherwise, your response is of no value. Try again?

My "opinion" is backed up by floors of peer-reviewed articles in major libraries and the evidence in hundreds of museums. That is typical trollish behavior.

No problem.Given billions of organisms, each having multiple mutations at each generation, with generations of some species being surprisingly short, and with three or so billion years to work with, that's easy!

Wrong! Again.Mutations are CHANGES. (Gee, its in caps, so it must be true!)Whether you say yea or nay, some changes are beneficial, some are neutral, and some are detrimental IN RELATION TO THE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT.Guess which ones tend to be passed on at a higher rate.

Adam is a myth. It makes no sense to base a logical argument on a myth.

Molecular Evolution: Nearly Neutral TheoryTomoko Ohta, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, JapanAbstractNearly neutral theory is an extension of the neutral theory and contends that the borderline mutations, whose effects lie between the selected and the neutral classes, are important at the molecular level. Under the strict neutral theory, the evolutionary rate is equal to the neutral mutation rate. Under the near‐neutrality, the situation is not so simple and the most significant difference between the neutral and the nearly neutral theories is that the latter predicts a negative correlation between evolutionary rate and species population size. The nearly neutral theory also predicts abundant rare alleles in the population as compared with strict neutrality. Genome‐wide data on protein evolution are mostly in accord with the nearly neutral theory. Genetic regulatory systems are highly complex. The near‐neutrality concept may be extended to the evolution of such systems, where epigenetics and robustness are important for gene expression and many mutations are weakly selected.
Key Concepts:

--The emphasis of significance of weak selection in evolution distinguishes the nearly neutral theory from the neutral theory.

​

--The nearly neutral theory contends that the interplay of drift and weak selection is important and predicts that evolution is more rapid in small populations than in large populations.

​

--Many observed patterns of protein evolution by measuring synonymous and nonsynonymous divergences are in accord with the nearly neutral theory.

​

--Observed molecular polymorphisms within a population often show abundance of rare alleles, in accord with the prediction of the nearly neutral theory.

​

--Numerous complex systems work together in living cells such as those in chromatin modelling/remodelling and in various signalling pathways. Interplay of drift and weak selection is important for evolution of such complex systems.

Just a moment...Do you see anything here that supports YEC or any other anti-evolution causes? If so, I'd appreciate an explanation, as I don't see it.