[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.

[js1138]

I still don't see any evidence that you have followed what you have been given, such as the links in 713.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Your comments have been adequately addressed. Whether or not you like an answer has no bearing on the adequacy of answer. VI

[Tribune7]

To sum it up:

If you come here to challenge and their answers aren't adequate -- you're a troll LOL :-)