No, I didn't lie before. He said plainly that the best place for mutation to occur is in the developement of the embryo. Evolution is a theory. It is a theory because you've never seen it happen. If you've never seen evolution happen before, you can't say how it "can't" happen - only how your theory expects it to happen or how your theory expects it not to happen. I'm looking at it from a common sense biology point of view and a practical life view in general. Or in other words, I'm suspending disbelief long enough to pretend it's a fact and then imagining where his statement leads. It leads to the leap from one to another. Why? Simple. Cause an undirected random event Doesn't care where or when it happens - it really doesn't care how either.
You said it plain as day. I marched you right down the path and you said it:
"If an organism gave birth to a new species, there wouldn't be another of the same species to mate with. It's not how any evolutionist says evolution can or does work."
Your words. What is the problem with this statement? Evolution is a random process that acts based upon chance.
If it happens based on chance, chance doesn't care that there will be no mate. It flat doesn't care. You may care because it's a problem with your theory now. I'm just trying to get you to see that. Evolution can't think. It doesn't have a mind of it's own that knows where it's going. It's an undirected process that just stumbles where it will and wakes up the next morning with the girl it can't explain, doesn't know the first name of and might only remember "she didn't look that way last night..." But as for where evolution ends up, it doesn't care.
It isn't that Evolution somehow knows there won't be a mate there that is the problem. It's the fact that you know there won't be a mate there that is the problem. Or more specifically, it's the fact that everyone of us here knows that which becomes the problem. This is why you have to carefully define it in the theory side and pretend what "cannot happen" makes sense. When evolution can't know what the end result is because it doesn't know where it's going, you can't limit where evolution takes place, how fast, why or what the end result is. If it's truly random and based on mutation, the theory isn't the guide. Reality becomes the guide. And we all know the reality of the woman that would be screaming in horror at this thing that just came out of her. I'm sure that would be her last memory as a cardiac episode would soon follow and probably be partnered with severe psychiatric issues if she lived through it.
So, yes, I believe Rainbow said this - whether intending to or not. I think the guy is brilliant. Perhaps I inferred too much. If I did, so be it. I don't wish to impugne the man. But there is the theory and there is reality. When you define it as random and undirected the reality then imposes itself. You don't then get to direct it with semantic games or theory. If it's random, it is random. If it's directed, then you have another problem. Evolution knowing there won't be a mate destroys the randomness and introduces direction.
Do you see it now? I'm sure a lot of people do. The question is whether you do.