> I still don't see what mechanism you're claiming inhibits parts of the genome from mutation. It seems like he's saying that the burden of proof is on you, si

> I still don't see what mechanism you're claiming inhibits parts of the genome from mutation. It seems like he's saying that the burden of proof is on you, since you are claiming that macroevolution exists. He doesn't need a specific qualm to do that. For instance, if you had said, "it is possible to build a mountain out of rice, since the total mass of rice in the world is sufficient for that purpose," he would be entirely justified in asking you to actually build the mountain rather than just measuring the amount of rice in the world. After all, who knows what problems rice-mountain-building encounters. Maybe rice piles higher than a hundred meters begin to fall apart. Nobody knows. One could say the same thing about macroevolution, namely, there might indeed be some factor which prevents a large number of minor mutations from sticking around to cause speciation. A skeptic doesn't have to name this factor, the burden is on you to provide proof. ...and, of course, ample proof of macroevolution (and the fact that it is caused by an accumulation of smaller evolutionary changes) has been provided by the fossil record, as you've said many times.