[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

There's your ascending line. 0, 1, 2 (at most).

Now, at 200,000 mutations, which is more important? Draw your straight line through there! Cherry-picking data, huh? Do you do research for Al Gore on global warming, too?

Oh, and I'll expect an apology from any good Christian who falsely accuses someone of something they did not say or do. As you did in post #330 (as I pointed out in #349).

[Southack]

"Now, at 200,000 mutations, which is more important? Draw your straight line through there! Cherry-picking data, huh?"

The same conclusion would be reached at 200,000 random mutations as for 0, 1, or 2...though the effort involved at illustrating said conclusion would be raised considerably (your goal, rather than having an honest debate).

I made my point by showing what happens at 0 mutations. Then I re-made my point by showing it again at 1 random mutation and then again at 2.

Your argument, in contrast, is so weak that you are left to merely raise the bar (e.g. to 200,000 random mutations). By that process, as soon as I showed the same result for 200,000 random mutations, you'd be so cheeky as to demand a result for 200 trillion random mutations.

Which is to say, you failed at 0, you failed at 1, you failed again at 2, and you'd likewise fail at 200,000 and 200 trillion...though you'd delay the inevitable with such inanities.