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.
They are mistaken right from the start because evolution never happened across phylum boundries.
Simple.
Life was created, and life forms were created intact and complete.
Changes that occur within species is nothing more then genetic variation, not evolution.
And that is good science.