Now you're being disingenuous. Are you really going to claim, as the logic of this statement suggests, that genetic changes within a species are qualitatively different from those which produce a new species? Of course not. In the theory of evolution, speciation is presumed to result from the accumulation of genetic changes within a population of some base species.
What's at issue here is not the genetics, so much as it is the mechanism by which the genetics are driven. In the two examples we're discussing here, the mechanism is driven by intelligent agents. In the first case, the intelligent agents are using a natural process to achieve a set of defined characteristics. In the latter case, we have humans making direct changes to the genetic structure of the corn, thereby replacing "natural selection" with a manufacturing process. My claim is that the theory of evolution is not set up to recognize the presence of intelligent agents in either process, which (again) suggests that theory is incomplete.
I don't rule it out. You have to present some scientific evidence to support it. To my knowledge nothing but wishful thinking and sophistry has ever been presented to support an "intelligent agent".
No. As this statement makes abundantly clear, you have ruled it out -- and this despite the fact that we know intelligent agents can, do, and historically have influenced the development of many plants and animals. Unless you meant to say something other than what you've written.
Give us some evidence or drop it. I tire of this continual appeal to reject the primary basis of biology because you don't want it to be true.
Were you being honest, you'd admit that I'm not arguing for ID, or against evolution, so much as I am addressing the assumptions at work in the debate.
Were you being honest, you would admit that I have stated explicitly that I do NOT reject the "primary basis of biology."
Were you being honest, you would refer back to my comment at #313: "It would be folly to argue against the presence of natural processes in the development of life -- that would indeed be to blind myself to the evidence."
But you're evidently not interested in being honest.
And because of your statements and misstatements, it becomes clear to me that you're unwilling to look at the philosophical roots of your position; and that you're also unwilling to contemplate the possibility that you are arguing in favor of a theory that we can demonstrate to be incomplete.
That's your choice. But don't expect to score many points by continuing your displays of petulance.
A breeder takes the place of natural selection. That was Darwin's example in Origin of Species. You can't refute evolution by using it.
If you understand that microevolution is the same as macroevolution, what are you arguing about?
This is the key.