I am Karin, very interesting article that contained the information I was searching for in Google, thanks....

Don't forget the theory of the semicolon. I mean, what *proof* is there about how to use it? It's just some guy's opinion, right?

Perhaps you need to do some googling yourself, because during a quick
googling of my own, I found several quotes where that very term was
used to conclude the deleterious nature of most mutations. For
example:

"In summary, the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. This is
one of the most well-established principles of evolutionary genetics."
-- BIOONE Journal (A Realisitc Model of Mutations)

"The genomic mutation rate is a fundamental evolutionary parameter of
any population, determining the rate of influx of new deleterious and
beneficial alleles. Because most mutations are likely to be
harmful to fitness, DNA repair and proofreading systems have
probably evolved so as to minimize rates of mutation." Current
Biology 2004 14:R245

"A vast majority of mutations in an organism's DNA have deleterious
effects on the organism and thus will be immediately selected against,
or they will be irrelevant or have only very marginal effects. Only a
tiny percentage of all mutations will confer a survival advantage on
the organism that inherits it."
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/be2.shtml

The references continue to go on and on, all of which would contradict
your (and TalkOrigin's) assertions that most mutations are merely
neutral. Since Ann Coulter is not a scientist (and does not pretend
to be such), it's not hard to see why she would reach these
conclusions, especially when it seems like the "scientific" community
can't make up its mind either way.

You have to wonder if one reason evolutionists have such a hard time
selling evolution to the masses is because of an unnatural fondness
for spouting bullshit, cloaked in bombastic jargon that virtually
nobody (sometimes not even they themselves) could understand, all the
while exhibiting subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) acidic contempt
for us laypeople, such as what you've demonstrated here. We may not
be scientists, but I have to wonder whether the only real difference
between us and "them" consists of nothing more than that we have a
smaller vocabulary.

I won't begin to address the straw men arguments you've made against
Coulter before, which are irritating not so much because of its tone
than because of its appalling hypocrisy, since it is virtually what
you accuse her of doing. To do so would require more time than I'm
willing to spend here, and would accomplish nothing except to draw me
into the same tired old spats regarding the controversy of evolution.

Gloriously, Behe testified under oath that his definition of "theory," as in "ID is a theory," applies equally well to astrology.

Perhaps you need to do some googling yourself, because during a quick googling of my own, I found several quotes where that very term was
used to conclude the deleterious nature of most mutations. For example:

"In summary, the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. This is one of the most well-established principles of evolutionary genetics."
-- BIOONE Journal (A Realisitc Model of Mutations)

"The genomic mutation rate is a fundamental evolutionary parameter of any population, determining the rate of influx of new deleterious and beneficial alleles. Because most mutations are likely to be harmful to fitness, DNA repair and proofreading systems have probably evolved so as to minimize rates of mutation." Current Biology 2004 14:R245

"A vast majority of mutations in an organism's DNA have deleterious effects on the organism and thus will be immediately selected against, or they will be irrelevant or have only very marginal effects. Only a tiny percentage of all mutations will confer a survival advantage on
the organism that inherits it."
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/be2.shtml

The references continue to go on and on, all of which would contradict your (and TalkOrigin's) assertions that most mutations are merely
neutral. Since Ann Coulter is not a scientist (and does not pretend to be such), it's not hard to see why she would reach these conclusions, especially when it seems like the "scientific" community can't make up its mind either way.

You have to wonder if one reason evolutionists have such a hard time selling evolution to the masses is because of an unnatural fondness
for spouting bullshit, cloaked in bombastic jargon that virtually nobody (sometimes not even they themselves) could understand, all the
while exhibiting subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) acidic contempt for us laypeople, such as what you've demonstrated here. We may not
be scientists, but I have to wonder whether the only real difference between us and "them" consists of nothing more than that we have a
smaller vocabulary.

I won't begin to address the straw men arguments you've made against Coulter before, which are irritating not so much because of its tone
than because of its appalling hypocrisy, since it is virtually what you accuse her of doing. To do so would require more time than I'm willing to spend here, and would accomplish nothing except to draw me into the same tired old spats regarding the controversy of evolution.

Perhaps you need to do some googling yourself, because during a quick googling of my own, I found several quotes where that very term was used to conclude the deleterious nature of most mutations. For example:

"In summary, the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. This is one of the most well-established principles of evolutionary genetics."
-- BIOONE Journal (A Realisitc Model of Mutations)

"The genomic mutation rate is a fundamental evolutionary parameter of any population, determining the rate of influx of new deleterious and beneficial alleles. Because most mutations are likely to be harmful to fitness, DNA repair and proofreading systems have probably evolved so as to minimize rates of mutation." Current Biology 2004 14:R245

"A vast majority of mutations in an organism's DNA have deleterious effects on the organism and thus will be immediately selected against, or they will be irrelevant or have only very marginal effects. Only a tiny percentage of all mutations will confer a survival advantage on the organism that inherits it."
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/be2.shtml

The references continue to go on and on, all of which would contradict your (and TalkOrigin's) assertions that most mutations are merely neutral. Since Ann Coulter is not a scientist (and does not pretend to be such), it's not hard to see why she would reach these conclusions, especially when it seems like the "scientific" community can't make up its mind either way.

You have to wonder if one reason evolutionists have such a hard time selling evolution to the masses is because of an unnatural fondness for spouting bullshit, cloaked in bombastic jargon that virtually nobody (sometimes not even they themselves) could understand, all the while exhibiting subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) acidic contempt for us laypeople, such as what you've demonstrated here. We may not be scientists, but I have to wonder whether the only real difference between us and "them" consists of nothing more than that we have a smaller vocabulary.

I won't begin to address the straw men arguments you've made against Coulter before, which are irritating not so much because of its tone than because of its appalling hypocrisy, since it is virtually what you accuse her of doing. To do so would require more time than I'm willing to spend here, and would accomplish nothing except to draw me into the same tired old spats regarding the controversy of evolution.