the phylogeographic challenge to creationism

I have to break this to you. What you have been given is the simplified, digested, made-easy explanations for things. You are not being snowed under with technicalities. You level of misunderstanding is not at the technical details level. If you had the faintest idea of what the technical details (the "trees" ) were you wouldn't be saying the above.You are the one making firm statements about what is and isn't true. If anyone is belittling you it is for doing that when you know only very, very little about the subject and some of what you "know" is completely wrong.

You make statements like the above and you also expect people to take the time to explain things to you?You're bloody lucky to get the oportunity you have here. It won't last forever.

You have to be careful in considering which point you are picking to make a measurement. Mam is implying the point of formation of the first embryonic cell. I think you are implying after a living birth. Of course, the worst mutations are screened out very early leaving a different proportion of sorts of mutations later on.If (as I've read may be the case for humans) half of fertilizations abort almost immediately (and we assume this is a genetic problem) then it is easy to say "most" are harmful without that making the tiniest bit of difference to the discussion here. (of course, the subtlties may be lost on some posters ).

Well, we agree on something.You are, indeed, only repeating yourself. You are learning nothing and making little to no sense. It is amusing to watch but I wonder why other spend the time just to help create opportunities for you to be amusing.

You have been moved outside the rules since you are unable to handle the situation where you actually have to use evidence and logic. Since you are outside I don't bother with them in application to you.

Yup, and I've held back for awhile. It gets tempting when you offer such openings.The fact is that you have, indeed, been only repeating yourself.Others of your ilk argue that evolutionary mechanisms can not add information -- it is precisely the selection that you are on about that does so by selecting against the environment. You argue that evolutionary process can not add variability. Mutations do that. Everything born has some additional variablitity. You, yourself, are proof that you are wrong.You will never, ever get it though. I don't understand why you continue. You've already stated elsewhere that none of this matters. That no evidence or reason matters that ony Faith that your views are right matters. In that case why do you contradict that view by pretending to argue using your idea of evidence and logic?All you do is make yourself appear to be inconsistent and amusing.

LOL, so I am more closely related to any number of viri than I am to a chimp. In fact, it is possible I have 3 or more parents. I like that thought.It is almost as good at the factino that I am 90% not me but rather bacteria.