Lots of denial, CTD. Lots of mockery.

Still no evidence that tans are hereditary.

Still no evidence that skin does not reproduce by mitosis, just like bacteria.

Still no reply on the many organisms that form colonies that act as an integrated whole.

Still trying to distract people away from your failure to deal with the issue.

Quote
That doesn't sound like evolution to me.
Curiously, reality is still unimpressed by your opinion.

Quote
Usually within a couple or three generations the adaptations are provided from pre-existing DNA already designed to deal with the contingency.
And the "pre-existing DNA" is due to mutations that have spread through a population because they are beneficial, or neutral, or not significantly deleterious enough to entirely prevent survival or reproduction.

Quote
All anyone has is guesstimates of mutation rates. They can't count them accurately at all, let alone evaluate them.
Again, the issue is not whether you can count every single mutation and categorize it properly as beneficial, neutral or deleterious, the issue is that we can identify mutations that fall across the spectrum from beneficial to deleterious.

You continue to avoid the issue.

Quote
Even the vast majority of evolutionists recognize that recombination isn't mutation.
Let me rephrase my previous comment:

It is, of course, possible that I overstated the case, but the fact remains: recombination is one type of genetic change, and no amount of howling on your part will change that simple fact.

The fact also remains that the result of recombination can be beneficial, neutral or deleterious.

The fact also remains that this is not a mechanism to make tans hereditary.

The fact also remains that this does not effect the reproduction of skin cells in any way that renders it different from the way bacteria reproduce - by mitosis.

Want to address the issue?

Enjoy.