Originally Posted by RAZD
Still at it CTD, spreading those insinuations.

We still, however, have:
Looking again, it shouldn't waste too much of my time, and may prove entertaining.

Quote
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).
Double wrong. I never said tanned skin or muscular development were hereditary.

And I did explain the mechanisms which would be involved if they were.

Quote
No demonstration that skin does not reproduce by mitosis in the same way that bacteria reproduce.
Actually I did explain this, and I'm working on making it even more clear than I already have.

Russell2 mentioned that the mechanics are different for diploid & non-diploid cells. Can we expect infighting any time soon?

Quote
Or that skin is regularly shed so that any tan is lost in 3-4 weeks.
So what?

Quote
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.
Ah yes, this issue I said I was done discussing. What am I supposed to do, continue on and just play 'who can get the last post'?

Quote
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.
Your response indicates it isn't a red herring at all. Indeed, you fault me for not discussing it enough! See?

Quote
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.
All complaints that I need to discuss recombination further. Neither your actions nor the tenets of your religion are consistent with recombination being a red herring.

Quote
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.
Well, those who were following will recall that you still haven't answered your own question. The observant or inquisitive can stroll over to the thread dedicated to your quest to continually redefine 'evolution', and find my solution. My solution hasn't drawn any criticism yet, and it's been a little while...

Were I to dredge up issues from this thread, I'd start with the closeness of the imagined evolutionary relationship between men and Jarvik hearts. I don't think you ever convinced anyone we're all that closely related. I don't expect too many folks'd attend their family reunions, and I don't think marrying one would constitute incest.

I was looking forward to some good laughs, but you disappointed me on that one. Judging from how ridiculous your starting point was, that discussion could've provided a lot of entertainment; but for some strange reason you lost inspiration, or whatever you artsy types call it...

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson