By no recognized definition is "science" a "cult".
By no possibly accurate accusation is "science" my "cult."
So your continuing use of these false accusations says nothing about science or me, and a lot about you, FRiend.
But, yes, biological classifications certainly do support the now many-times confirmed Theory (not hypothesis) of Evolution.
Indeed, recent decades have seen biological classifications revised & overhauled in light of many DNA analyses showing that some creatures are more closely related (i.e., hirax, elephant, manatee) and other less so (i.e., Giant Pandas and Red Pandas) than had been previously understood.
"annalex": "There may very well be no esstablished definition of the boundary that exists and through which neither natural selection or even artificial selection, with or without mutations, does not cross.
Roughly, that boundary is species -- defined as those capable of producing viable and reproducing offspring at least in the lab.
You will have a moment of awakening -- the intellectual light will come on (and hopefully not blind you) -- when you finally realize, there is no physical boundary to be crossed.
There's no scientific evidence for a "boundary", there's no hypothesis or theory of why a "boundary" should exist.
It's just not there.
And that's why evolution can happen -- one mutation at a time, one natural selection at a time, generation after generation, for thousands, then millions, then tens of millions of generations.
At a certain point, these DNA changes will begin to discourage separated sub-species from interbreeding with each other, and over much longer times, will actually prevent the possibility of species or genera from interbreeding, even in a zoo or laboratory.
That's what "evolution" is all about -- there's no "revolution" in "evolution", no "storming the gates" to "cross species boundaries" -- it's all just one-mutation-at-a-time generation by generation, until natural selection finds features which improve a species survival.
And that's the lesson of all those examples mentioned here: Zebras, Elephants, cats & dogs, Pandas.
Each has different
- breeds (most dog breeds eagerly interbreed),
- sub-species (zebra sub-species don't usually interbreed, but can be "encouraged" in captivity),
- species (only interbreed if forced) and
- genera (African and Asian elephant genera cannot interbreed, period).
"annalex": "The idea that species have to be able of producing offspring not only in the lab but also in the wild, naturally -- is a flawed definition because you then allow in factors that are behavioral and not purely genetic."
Your "definition" here makes no sense, and does not correspond to scientific classifications.
I'm guessing it's just a straw-man you put together to support your argument, right?
Why else would you ignore actual definitions?
"annalex": "So the evolutionists need to produce a clear example of speciation by the above criterion."
What criteria? And why would they "need to"?
Does nature itself not already provide endless examples?
"annalex": "...second, with the instrumentarium of genetic engineering on hand perhaps you can take a manatee and produce a non-manatee within a couple of decades."
Since you are obviously not serious in proposing a trick, will you accept as a serious answer the definition of "non-manatee": any creature which cannot successfully interbreed with wild manatees?
If so, then the object could be achieved fairly quickly simply by artificially modifying a "non-manatee's" genetics to make them infertile.
More seriously, my understanding of scientific "state of the art" today is: attempting to record and analyze DNAs of every living creature.
Also, DNA modifications are being made for agricultural purposes, modifications which themselves can produce new species.
But there is no effort (that I know of) to, in effect, create entirely new DNA and then "grow" something from it.
Logic suggests this might eventually happen, but nothing to date reports it has.
Indeed, if you consider reported attempts to "resurrect" the Woolly Mammoth, none sound particularly "hi-tech".
So the only conceivable way to simulate millions of generations of evolution would be as some kind of super-computer decoding program which works on DNA analyses of different creatures, and attempts to evolve "backwards" to what would have been the DNA of their ancient common ancestors.
A bit far-fetched sounding, may not see it in our life-times... ;-)