Still at it CTD, spreading those insinuations.

We still, however, have:

No mechanism for tanned skin being hereditary (please read Russ's expose).

No mechanism for muscular development being hereditary (again I refer to Russ's expose).

No demonstration that skin does not reproduce by mitosis in the same way that bacteria reproduce. Or that skin is regularly shed so that any tan is lost in 3-4 weeks.

No answer to the issue that single cell organisms do in fact form colonies that behave as a whole organism, where different tasks are shared by different individuals.

No answer to the fact that recombination is not relevant to any of the above issues, and therefore was introduced by you as a red herring to avoid discussing the previous issues you have not answered.

No answer to the fact that recombination is still a change in genetic arrangement and therefore still a mutation (just a large scale mutation of one specific documented type, among several).

No answer to the fact that recombination, without other mutations causing different (and new) alleles, would accomplish nothing when it occurs with perfect alignment of the genes.

No answer to the fact that when it is not in perfect alignment, that recombination creates insertions/deletions ("indels") of segments of DNA in the process: indels that are identical to the kind of indels that occur without recombination (ie other forms of mutation).

No answer to the fact that bacteria bred from a single ancestor organism evolve into different daughter populations, some of which have hereditary abilities that the parent did not have, that these hereditary abilities were not inherited from the original parent organism but occurred through mutation.

No answer to the fact that these hereditary abilities are actually objectively beneficial when they allow the daughter population to use a food source the parent organism was unable to use.

No answer to the fact that the many different hereditary changes that occur in all the daughter populations, (a) are not inherited from the parent organism, and (b) are neutral if they offer no advantage or disadvantage. Calling them 'indeterminate' or 'unknown' does not alter the fact that they are neutral in terms of selection. The reason they are called neutral is because they are not affected by selection, not because their future cost/benefit is not known.

There there are the other unanswered issues ... such as the significant differences between Darwin's "descent with modification" and "the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" ... differences that mean the modern version is a weakened or diluted version of evolution from that original proposal.

Enjoy.