A little proof of Evolution

This is deceptive. There is a very real distinction between evolution resulting only from the spread of existing genes and evolution resulting from adaptive mutation. Saying that they are the same because they interact with each other is like saying that mentos and diet soda are the same thing.

"Adaptive mutation," is a pretty nonsensical term. Mutations happen. Only when they effect differential reproductive success can they be said to result in adaptation. Mutation alone is not adaptive.

But that aside, you are still missing the point. The genetic diversity being selected for in this particular instance is the result of other evolutionary mechanisms, specifically mutation and selection against a different range of selection pressures. The particular change in selection pressures did not happen in a vacuum, it happened against a genepool shaped by evolutinary mechanisms in the past.

The process of evolution is the same at all levels, http://armandleroi.com/research/pdf/Leroi013.pdf

By "adaptive mutation" I specifically meant mutations which would later be found to be adaptive. If it will clarify the debate, I won't use the term again.

Mutation is required to explain the development of species. The spread of existing genes (SEG) alone cannot explain it. Okay so far?

The OP article supports only SEG. There is no evidence for mutation. Saying, then, that this article demonstrates evolution (and by implication the development of species) because it demonstrates SEG; and SEG, together with mutation, is part and parcel of evolution, is flim-flam.

He makes the inaccurate statement that "mutation plus natural selection equals evolution" -- which is really only part of the formula. Genetic drift can also contribute to evolution, as can natural forces in the environment. And in fact, if mutations only caused entropy as he claims, I'm afraid Life would probably have died out on Earth hundreds of millions of years ago -- organisms would never have had the diversity to adapt to environmental pressure. He's ignoring the very clearly documented and observed evidence we have of genetic mutation occurring in nature in order to appease an emotional need to verify his religion.

Just a few examples of documented, observed mutations for your perusal:

* Mutations are commonly used by plant breeders to develop more robust strains of grain, etc.
* Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients
* Crop pests develop resistance to insecticides; bacteria to antibiotics, cancer cells to chemotherapy, HIV to anti-retroviral drugs -- these are all examples of smaller-scale mutations we know occur very quickly.
* Using bacteria, mutations can be traced and observed over thousands of generations in a very short time (some work with ecoli has followed a strain for 10,000 generations) -- National Academy of Sciences report, 1999: "tremendous diversity accumulated within each population, such that almost every individual had a different genetic fingerprint after 10,000 generations."

Please explain what exactly you mean by "there is no evidence for mutation"? Are you referring to the finches in the story alone, or mutation in general?

Hey! Do you want to talk about abiogenesis? I've just finished a slew of books on the subject and we might be able to work up a healty disagreement!

Morning Ondoher! I was hoping to coax you into staying around.

By "adaptive mutation" I specifically meant mutations which would later be found to be adaptive. If it will clarify the debate, I won't use the term again.

I agree with your second point. I have never claimed otherwise. You're still missing mine.

Mutation is required to explain the development of species. The spread of existing genes (SEG) alone cannot explain it. Okay so far?

The OP article supports only SEG. There is no evidence for mutation. Saying, then, that this article demonstrates evolution (and by implication the development of species) because it demonstrates SEG; and SEG, together with mutation, is part and parcel of evolution, is flim-flam.

Turning around and defending this sloppy logic on the grounds that the conclusion you came to is true, has me grinding my teeth and pulling my hair out! team coming out of head:

If you expect to use logic to change people's opinions (and you seem to have put a lot of energy into just that), you'd better run a squeaky clean operation yourself!

--Alvin