[MeanWestTexan]

You made your mistake in Post 130.

Again, aimless drift of non-expressive portions of DNA (junk) is not evolutionary by definition, as the DNA does nothing. It's just a handy marker.

You brought in the concept of genetic drift of fairly neutral items (say spot patterns or somesuch), which is also similarly fairly aimless, but can result in distict species when several are collected on top of each other.

These "nuetral" changes are only evolutionary, however, if you have pressure in the form of GENETIC ISOLATION (which is No. 3 or so on the list of "pressures" I listed in an earlier post). Otherwise, the you have matings with others of its kind that do not have a disproportionate amount of the trait(s) at issue and the "nuetral" variations are not reinforced.

No genetic isolation (the pressure), no evolution into a distinct species from such factors.

So, no you are still wrong.

[edsheppa]

I didn't make a mistake in #130, but you continue to make yours. Try reading up. You'll find that drift is evolutionary even is there is no "pressure in the form of GENETIC ISOLATION." All that is required is a change in the frequency within the population of the expressed traits. I think, from what you posted, you must be under the misapprehension that only speciation counts as evolution. That is wrong.

As for what "mistake" you perceive in my #130, I suppose what you are missing is that "evolutionary theory implies X" and "X is an example of evolution" are not the same meaning. It is a trivial application of evolutionary logic that the genomes of 20M year old and current organisms will differ by at least 20M years of change. This will occur in both expressed and unexpressed DNA although the "clocks" will be different depending on selection pressures on the expressed DNA.