[PatrickHenry]

"Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?" Is that not a fair scientific question?

No. It's a loaded question. You want to see an example of random speciation, when all we will ever see, in a human lifespan, is random mutation. The cumulative effects of the sometimes-successful mutations will, over time, generate a new species. If you are looking to see evidence of a goldfish spontaneously producing a dog, so am I. That would be a miracle, and I haven't seen any sign of that.

[Sabertooth]

It's a loaded question. You want to see an example of random speciation, when all we will ever see, in a human lifespan, is random mutation. The cumulative effects of the sometimes-successful mutations will, over time, generate a new species

The fact that the question is difficult doesn't make it loaded, nor unfair.

I agree with your comments regarding obervations beyond a human lifespan, and I'm not recommending we table discussion untill enough lifespans have elapsed to make the call.

What I am suggesting is that science be more careful in its conclusions and qualify its statements better. Here's what I posted at #20 on this thread:

Confirmation or "proof" of scientific hypotheses depends on the repetition of experimental results. It is the nature of some hypotheses to be outside the realm of experimentation, and I think Evolution is one. Small scale experimental standards of scientific proof aren't really applicable to issues of vast time scales such as evolution or cosmology.

That's why I suggested the phrase "Postulate of Evolution" above. "Big Bang Postulate" would be another.

Unfair?