A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

Nor do you all have a clue about how many mutations, what kind of mutations, are needed to counter the trend to genetic reduction, nor whether they in fact play any role at all in any of the processes other than bringing disease, or whether pre-existing alleles in the population could account for all of it or not, because you are not thinking along these lines and not testing for them. It's all assumption. Prove it. Start a thread and prove that it was a mutation rather than a pre-existing allele or combination of alleles. I dare you. Imagine that. Clearly it is what evos are doing when they assume that mutation is all it takes to power evolution. NO EVIDENCE. Most mutations are deleterious. Nobody has yet tried to SHOW that the ridiculously few known useful mutations could possibly counter all the factors that reduce genetic diversity, you just assume that it does.

You have been given evidence. You choose to ignore it.Some of the evidence (all that we've found so far) shows that your idea of some sort of super genome in the past is bunk.Some of the evidence shows that there are mutations in all organisms and they are obviously near enough to neutral (since the organisms are alive). This means that they increase diversity in the gene pool countering some of your assertions.Some of the evidence shows that there are, indeed, some beneficial mutations.Some of the discussion points out the flaws in the 'reasoning' you've used.None of these points have been answered by you.

Time to put this puppy to bed.

---