How do you know God isn't dead?

[The Grand Nudger]

That’s not what I said at all, if you’re trying to explain any of the distinct genetic information and phenotypes we observe in organisms on earth with neutral mutations then those mutations would have had to given rise to those features and had become fixed through drift in those populations, and that’s not mathematically possible. So no matter whether you want to explain them through Natural Selection or through Neutral Molecular Evolution, either way you can’t. Perhaps you have a third mechanism?

No, Statler, they would not have to do any such thing, and yet again I have to remind you that what you call impossible happens with regularity. We've already been over this, why should I repeat myself? You mean a 4th...don't you? Since we already have mutation, non-random selection, and random selection. Is there any room for a 4th (what might we point to that doesn't fall under any of these headers?)?

You’re committing equivocation again; we are not talking about the frequencies of alleles in a population we are talking about the origination of those new alleles to begin with.

LOL, no, you're arguing from a point of ignorance. If we're talking about selection, be it neutral, deleterious or beneficial - and genetic drift...we are -not- talking about the origin of these things -at all-. You would know this, if you understood the theory. It's right in the damned name of the theory -Synthesis.

Yes, thank you for tossing out that little ridiculous hypothesis.

It was ridiculous from the first moment you floated it in order to argue against it-something I've mentioned in every post. Required no concessions from me.

And those mathematical probabilities indicate your hypothesis is statistically impossible. Game over.

Impossi-bru!

What a waste of time! You only brought up neutral mutations because I was pointing out that the evidence we observe does not support Natural Selection, and now you are admitting that Natural Selection was your best mechanism to begin with; so disingenuous.

Then stop wasting your own fucking time erecting straw effigies of a theory Stat? I explained to you what natural selection could not do pages ago. It clearly went right over your head - because here we are. It isn't as though I haven't reminded you -in every post- that you've been arguing with yourself. I don't see why you're bitching -to me- about your time being wasted?

Let me help you steer clear of wasted time in the future. Learn.....the.....theory - and then- come back and argue against it. Is that too much to ask? Why should I have to correct you at every turn - why am I required to notify you when you're arguing against yourself in the first place man?

Let's try to get passed the fundamentals -one more time-. All that is required of a mutation for it to be passed on or become fixed in a population is that it be non-deleterious. Can you move forward from here, or is your contention DOA from this point onward?