[ahayes]

I'm beginning to agree with Patrick Henry.

Genetic drift is not only actively observed in populations, but through rational thought and a bit of math you can see it is predicted to occur. I'm afraid most creationists don't even know what genetic drift is, but if they do they would agree it is real.

Natural selection is also actively observed in populations and predicted to occur. Creationists likewise (sometimes only if pinned in a corner) will agree that it is real.

So what's your beef?

Logically, why would crossing one boundary (phyla) require anything different that crossing another boundary (species)?

Golly, why don't you go off for a few months and read some books?

Unless the population size is quite small genetic drift is sloooow. It dithers about here and there and takes forever to get anything done. Then when mutations occur the new alleles/genes/chromosome arrangements/etc. occur among a small number of the population. If natural selection is not present to give these novelties a boost genetic drift has the tendency to just wipe them out. In general genetic drift is the enemy of innovation.

Most major evolutionary innovations have taken place following mass extinctions. These events leave many niches wide open. Examples are the Permian-Triassic extinction, which allowed the evolution of dinosaurs; the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, which allowed mammals to replace the dinosaurs; and the late Devonian extinction, which was followed by the development of all modern types of plants. Some people think that the Cambrian explosion followed a Vendian-Cambrian mass extinction. The rapidity of these developments indicates natural selection was the driving force. If we waited for genetic drift to modify dinosaurs into birds we'd be waiting forever.

Remember that it is impossible to consider evolution as solely based upon natural selection or solely based upon genetic drift. Leaving out either gives a picture that is inaccurate.

And no, your thunderstorm analogy has no resemblance to reality. Mine is a much more accurate analogy.

[Lucky Dog]

ahayes, Thank you for patience and willingness to address my points. Sincerely, I do appreciate your polite responses as well as that others that have been similarly patient and polite on this thread.

Please let me review the origin of the posts: I entered the forum with the simple question of whether or not a statistical correlation exists among mutation rates, natural selection pressure and the emergence of new species. The existence of strong to moderate correlation would considerably buttress the argument for evolution. The lack of even a weak correlation makes the supporting the theory somewhat problematic. Various posters (except two) went to great lengths to make arguments why such an examination was not possible, or if it was, not desirable. In so doing a number of posters offered rote, text book answers, some erudite expansion on such, and some few, purely dogmatic replies and even fewer, personal attacks.

In post 672, I made an honest effort to put the debate back to very briefly stated, basic premises so that my challenges could be addressed at the most basic level with logic and unambiguousness.

Perhaps, I missed it, but I still am under the impression that such has not been adequately addressed. And it seems that it will not be so.

Consequently, it seems best, rather than creating more acrimony among posters by continuing my queries to accept that such will not happen and withdraw.