What I have done was to demonstrate that harmful mutations must accumulate at a far faster pace than beneficial mutations, even if one grants every benefit of doubt to the evolutionist cause. The only doubt I do not grant is 100% automatic selection when a fitness change of less than 100% is involved.
No you haven't. You have merely claimed that harmful mutations accumulate faster than beneficial ones.
Nonsense. You might take another look at the first post in the thread. I did everything I said I did. Such a denial is just... well, folks can see for themselves how meaningless it is.
You claim that harmful mutations must necessarily be passed on to the next generation at a greater rate than beneficial mutations. Yet you fail to define or at least provide the theory of evolution's definition of harmful and beneficial mutations. You also have not shown any study, paper, or book by anyone in the field of biology or genetics that states harmful mutations even occur at a higher rate than beneficial ones much less remain in the population at higher percentages.
I used quite a few words in the English language to make that post. I have no intention of defining every last single word I used. If you maintain that this is needful, you can start setting an example and provide definitions of every single word you use.
Have you given me any reason to think my conclusion is erroneous? Certainly not.
You conclusion is erroneous only if your premise is erroneous. Prove the premise and then we'll see about the conclusion.
You've already grossly misidentified the premise(s) in the post. Now you talk of a conclusion? You just got done saying I up & claimed harmful mutations must outnumber beneficial mutations. I did nothing of the sort. I provided a simple, reasoned demonstration that this must happen. But because you don't like the outcome (even 'though you say it has no bearing on your belief) you can't even discuss it accurately.
I did address the facts of your premise which you have not shown are true facts. If these "facts" of yours are so "commonly-known" then you should have no problem providing documentation of such from someone that works in the field of evolution biology.
But I do have a problem. I have a problem allowing my time to be utterly and unquestionably wasted. And you have a problem convincing me to waste my time. So far, you've failed.
For instance, would you have me believe you're actually so ignorant that you don't know I'm being very, very, very generous with the ratio of good to bad mutations? Does anyone doubt you'd take offense if I assumed you were so ignorant?
I'll tell you what I do assume. I do assume you've found no actual flaws in what I said. You can beat around the bush if you want, but so what? None of it can make evolutionism work.
