Replies

Meddling with the DNA using super-dooper new micro-tech capabilities is being tried at the U of Chicago, and I read of some of ther similar try in Arizona. Basically, they attempted to co-opt "Natural Selection" to force a new species into being by programming their new species in the "program" itself. Frankly, they ought, according to their own beliefs, be able to do just that. They've got the tools.

But they haven't quite managed it yet. Still, they send out press releases that It Has Happened, even though...it hasn't happened. Given all the ideal lab conditions, all these perfect opportunities, all these Brilliant Minds--I believe it draws attention to the fact that speciation was supposed to have happened by accident, fortuitously, in perfect fortuitous accidental order. link

Your post says " even a bit of lost overlap."

Yes -- which part were you having trouble understanding?

When you can repackage the chromosomes in a lab and create a new species,

Define "new species" as you are using it in this sentence.

or prove this by showing the world a current day mutation creating a permanent species, then I'll believe it.

Why "current day"? And define "a permanent species" -- as opposed to what, the temporary kind?

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Until then, you are just speculating.

No, actually, I'm not. But I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand that.

You, however *are* merely speculating, since you are forming your opinion without even a superficial knowledge of the vast amount of evidence which is available on this subject.

Come on, son, take me up on my challenge in the earlier post -- if the vast amounts of evidence accumulated on this topic of biology (a tiny fraction of which is presented in that post, but it'll take you *months* to read just that tip of the iceberg) *isn't* actually the overwhelming support for evolutionary common descent that it certainly appears to be, then *where* exactly have all those myriads of biologists been mistaken, *what* actually explains the full body of evidence better, and *why* would your non-evolutionary alternative explanation end up "accidentally" causing all that evidence to only *look* like ironclad evidence for evolution?

Answer the question. Now.

Or admit that you're "just speculating" and don't really have any idea what in the hell you're talking about.

When you can repackage the chromosomes in a lab and create a new species, or prove this by showing the world a current day mutation creating a permanent species, then I'll believe it.

This happens to be unnecessary because "creation scientists" have (if implicitly) conceded the point that DNA can be repackaged and chromosome numbers change within a single "created kind".

Although creationists frequently cannot decide the boundaries of kinds, even in the case of the "clearly separate" categories of humans and apes (see the chart I posted above), there is at least one case where there seems to be universal agreement. Horses, the living members of the Family Equidae, are commonly cited as the paradigmatic example of a "created kind". Yet look at the chromosome numbers:

Ah, well I can't find a simple chart, but suffice to say that there are (IIRC, and not counting those of hybrids) at least ten distinct karyotypes among the Equids, with 2n chromosome numbers ranging from 32 to 66.