And you have utterly failed to give an "agenda-free" explanation for the facts I listed in 231. You don't like evolution, you don't like me and what you imagine is my agenda, and you don't like answering questions.
However, I'll answer yours. There are so many species revealed in the fossil record because there's been so much time. Actually, when life was new on earth, there weren't all that many species at any one moment. But over time, as speciation occurs, and the unfit die off, etc., you start to develop a record of life's history. And it's a very long history. Most of our close relatives (speaking in terms of earlier species) are gone now. But we're still here. So there are many fossil species of pre humans, but only one species of us. That's not so very difficult.
Now, care to take a crack at what I've been asking you?
re: Just look at the evidence: the apparent age of the earth, the fossil record, the observed DNA relationships among species previously thought to be related when all we had was fossil evidence, the fact that mutations occur, the fact that in every generation the unfit generally don't breed, the speciation events that have been observed in the short time we've been looking, the slowly-increasing number of transitional fossils that are being discovered (which are necessary if evolution is true, but which -- forgive my agenda-driven remark here -- are an embarrassment for creationism). )))
This is a question? At first reading, I thought it a sermon...
"Speciation events"--(g)--something like a gene pool party?
Farmers already understand breeding for type. They've done it for thousands of years in isolation from one continent to the next. They've not come up with new sheep, although it would appear to be the best laboratory for it to have happened if it can happen. It is a huge leap to go from breeding for type to new species. Chihuahuas and Great Danes .
And geneticists can't seem to do it with fruit flies, either, without tinkering with the software inside the cell.
"Transitional"(once more I observe that this term is a characterization by scientists, not a fact --by casually naming them so, you think the naming carries a persuasive weight to which I must genuflect. Despite your pouting at my heresy, I made this observation twice before; I'll make it here again. There is no proof of transitions--only a surface appeal and enormous assumptions. I'll go farther and say that it isn't even an indication--)
Farm animals are complex, but fruit flies are certainly a potential means to demonstrate what happens in nature. I observed that they have been the toys of scientists, scientists in isolation in different continents, for thousands, maybe millions, of generations of fruit flies. No new flies, yet--maybe there aren't even any in this article. A close reading of the article, when you filter out the enthusiasm (and egos), will show only the expectation, not the new species.
Seems like these favorable speciation conditions should have yielded something new with fruit flies without the Intelligent Design of the research scientist.
This is an observation--that the researchers have assumed the role of Guiding Intellect in regards to speciation-- I made which you, busy with huffing and puffing, did not address, though I made it more than once. This makes it three times.
You even anticipated this objection by listing it with others in a very early post, but do not bother to discuss it. Does anticipation of an objection carry with it an automatic dismissal? A derisive attitude only intimidates freshmen... You make all kinds of leaps and assumptions, and when called on them, proceed to insinuate that your opponents are superstitious--witch doctors or something.
You know, the "Skeptical Enquirer" may have a tiny circulation, but it doesn't mean it doesn't amuse widely. I've had copies sent to me by many evangelical athiests.
And even were a new species to happen once, could it then happen over and over again for our vast array of creatures and flora?
Oh, time, again. Om.
DNA evidence is certainly an exciting potential for the piously observant evo-geneticist. So far, they've been able to demonstrate interrelatedness and connectedness to an unaguable level. Amazing how we are genetically tied to other primates--astonishing.
There's still that *leap*, though, and the fossil record between primates is curiously scanty compared to, say, ole eohippus and Seabiscuit.
And then there's that mule problem--the bothersome barnyard cul de sac. Isolate two mules, and you'll soon have no mules, not more mules. Even under highly favorable conditions, all organisms have their mortality and fragility and fertility problems. Just try to keep animals healthy and breeding without even trying to create a new species--a whiff of bad weather, a few bacteria--goners.
Time brings death.