[Arrowhead]

You do not seem anymore inclined to correct me than I do to go back and show you the material I have read over the years.

I have already admitted that memory may be faulty and I have no extensive knowledge of the science. But, you splatter nothing but "lalalala" and you expect me to learn something from that?

Suck a lima bean Pal! You might turn into a artichoke,

Arrowhead>>>---hypocrites-->

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You do not seem anymore inclined to correct me than I do to go back and show you the material I have read over the years."

I did correct you.

"But, you splatter nothing but "lalalala" and you expect me to learn something from that?"

Nothing but? I believe I posted a bit more than that.

"Suck a lima bean Pal! You might turn into a artichoke,"

RIIIiiiiiight...

BTW, natural selection has been the term used since Darwin published in 1859. Unless you are over a hundred years old, it's what was used when you were in school. Nobody says that organisms *choose* to become a new species; that was your invention. You never elaborated on what genetic markers were used as species designators, which was your claim. My incredulity was because the use of genetic markers are a very recent thing and species have been designated LONG before DNA was discovered. Genetic markers simply couldn't have been the traits used to distinguish species.

You also didn't say what scientists have said that species can change without a change in DNA. And when did the days "...when scientists hypothesized the notion that if you plant an apple seed, you can get an orange.", ever exist?