It is about one month and you are not past the main point of criticism that I set forth on this thread. No one argues that random mutations do not occur. Please read back my posts and figure out what the objection to your theories is.
"Natural selection", the second key element of evolution is also not a "hypothesis", it's a many-times observed and confirmed fact.
Ditto, no one does indeed. I certainly don't. Read back and find where I denied natural selection leading to breeds or subspecies, -- and that is where it has been observed "many times".
begin to meet the criteria
Now that IS a word salad. The criteria are a funny thing: they are either met or not met.
counting up the DNA changes
Or tea leaves. Have you tried tea leaves? You postulate that random mutations lead to speciation, then you count differnces in two different species and claim that these are "DNA changes" They may just as soon be simply two genomes, not related to one another.
In short, if you cannot figure out what the argument against your hypothesis is, why do you waste your time and mine? This makes true science look very, very bad.
you have no understanding, and no respect for word definitions
Well, I will appreciate corrections, but at the same time, I am not a biologist. If you cannot refute my posts other than by pointing out that here and there I used a layman's term, then again, this is what lawyers do, not what scientists do.
demand that science, in effect, perform a magic trick in a laboratory
That really takes the cake. Ever heard that in science hypotheses ARE proven by experimentation? I ALLOWED for laboratory setting to accelerate your experiment. If you instead endeavor to conduct the necessary experiments in the wild, good luck.
You have yet to make a coherent or cogent argument.
Random mutations are a confirmed fact which helps confirm evolution as a theory, not "hypothesis".
That's the reason I included this point in my list.
annalex: "Read back and find where I denied natural selection leading to breeds or subspecies, -- and that is where it has been observed "many times".
Anything often observed and confirmed is a fact, not a hypothesis.
The fact of natural selection is one foundation for the theory of evolution.
annalex: "Now that IS a word salad.
The criteria are a funny thing: they are either met or not met."
I have now many times explained the process and scientific criteria of speciation.
You have just as frequently jabbered "word salads" to the effect that you disagree and dislike scientific ideas on the subject.
In some of your more colorful language, you call them "voodoo" and "cults".
annalex: "You postulate that random mutations lead to speciation, then you count differnces in two different species and claim that these are "DNA changes"
They may just as soon be simply two genomes, not related to one another."
According to various studies there are thousands of mammal species, tens of thousands of bird, reptile and fish species and millions of other species.
In addition, thousands of extinct species have been identified from fossils.
But, no scientific fact, theory or hypothesis I know of claims that any or all of these species are not more or less distantly related.
Nor has any scientific hypothesis ever been proposed to explain how the earth might be populated by thousands and millions of unrelated species.
Occum's Razor among other ideas, suggests the simplest scientific explanation is best: all DNA driven species descended from common ancestors, some as far back as hundreds of millions of years ago.
annalex: "In short, if you cannot figure out what the argument against your hypothesis is, why do you waste your time and mine?
This makes true science look very, very bad."
Your anti-science "word salads" cannot possibly make "true science look very, very bad."
annalex: "Well, I will appreciate corrections, but at the same time, I am not a biologist.
If you cannot refute my posts other than by pointing out that here and there I used a layman's term, then again, this is what lawyers do, not what scientists do."
Interesting that you should pretend to know just "what scientists do," immediately after admitting that you are "not a biologist".
I would suggest a central disconnect in your reasoning: on the one hand you admit to no understanding of the basics of biological science (i.e., species classifications), while on the other hand you demand as "proof" of your misunderstandings of evolution theory, that scientists perform magic tricks in a laboratory, turning elephants into manatees, and zebras into monkeys.
And as long as scientists can't pull magic monkeys out of zebras, you'll insist science is all just "voodoo" and "cult".
I'm saying you speak "word salad" and thus cannot possibly harm real science.
As for my efforts here, it's likely true they waste your time, but I'm not yet convinced it wastes mine, FRiend. ;-)
annalex: "Ever heard that in science hypotheses ARE proven by experimentation?
I ALLOWED for laboratory setting to accelerate your experiment."
More "word salad."