annalex from #142:
"When someone who believes that nonsense repeatedly tells me a story about selection of subspecies -- something no one has disputed to be a fact, -- then varnishes it with irrelevant count of some mutations that may or may not have contributed to the selection, which in the lab could have been produced without them, -- then it becomes clear, with repetition, that the actual science is not there, and, further, plain logic is not there.
There is a script being read.
It's a cult." First, let's set aside the insults as being just evidence of annalex's immaturity and psychological projections.
Second, I have never used your phrase "selection of subspecies" -- it's just another of your weird terms, along with "evolution between species".
Science doesn't use those terms, and they are give-aways suggesting annalex is more religiously than scientifically motivated.
Third, the count of mutation differences among sub-species and species is not "irrelevant", as you say, rather it is the essence of what makes one species different from all others.
And that ability of scientists over the past 20+ years to compare and contrast the genomes of all species and sub-species has revolutionized our understandings of the evolutionary processes.
To pick out another example, the little Hirax and the big Manatee are both more closely related to Elephants than to any other living species.
This we know by comparing and contrasting their DNAs -- and counting the relevant mutations:
I have never used your phrase "selection of subspecies" -- it's just another of your weird terms, along with "evolution between species". Science doesn't use those terms If I did not use correct terms I apologize. Is the meaning that I put in the terms I used clear to you from the context of my posts? If it is not, I repeat: I am not interested in examples of selection (natural or artificial) that lead to a new breed inside a species. I am interested in an example of one species evolving through random mutations to a point where under favorable environmental conditions (again, natural or artificial) a selection of a different species occurs. For example, a manatee is clearly a different species from an elephant. So breed me a manatee out of an elephant and prove this thing once and for all.
Note that "comparing and contrasting the DNA" is the thesis that is in need of a proof; it is not by itself a proof. I can easily see that a manatee and an elephant have features that are similar. So? They are similar creatures, so their genomes must be similar too. You repeat the same mistake Darwin made, except he looked at the shapes of some beaks and you look at the DNAs. Similarity of features does not prove evolutionary relationship between the species.