At this point, it is just semantics. The reason we have different alleles is due to mutations. I really don’t see why it matters if these beneficial mutations occurred prior to them being needed or after.[quote=“benkirk, post:83, topic:36626”]
Can you claim with a straight face that we US scientists have done a good job of educating the public about evolution?
There are tons of great books and textbooks out there that do a wonderful job of explaining evolution. You can lead a horse to water . . .[quote=“benkirk, post:83, topic:36626”]
But what you seem to be missing is that underlying that misconception is a bigger misconception that populations are static, then we have a mutation, and only then is there evolution.
That seems to be the misconception you are helping to fuel by ruling out mutations that created new alleles in the past during times of stasis.[quote=“benkirk, post:83, topic:36626”]
And what I’m pointing out is that the vast majority of raw material for selection is, as Darwin observed, already present, no mutations required.
The problem is that mutations are what produced that variation to begin with.[quote=“benkirk, post:83, topic:36626”]
Do you think that Tom agrees with your view?
Tom doesn’t need to agree with me. The truth doesn’t need agreement.