Replies

How? random mutation to genetic information contained in the gametogenitor cells and inherited by the offspring, repeated a great number of times over time (random mutations occur at fairly predictable rates, given enough time and a large enough population) in geographically separated subpopulations of the original species, giving rise to filial lines sufficiently divergent from each other that interbreeding is no longer possible, eventually leading to sufficient genetic divergence between these daughter populations and the original species to render P-to-F interbreeding also impossible.

repeat, over and over again, and you end up with enormously divergent (ie: fully speciated) daughter lines descended from the same parent species.

I'm going to slit my wrist. Your attempting to explain a theory with yet another theory and you expect me to say, "Well, that explains it. Let's light a few Bibles under the grill and have a celebratory beef tongue."

I'm going to slit my wrist. Your attempting to explain a theory with yet another theory and you expect me to say, "Well, that explains it. Let's light a few Bibles under the grill and have a celebratory beef tongue."

You are perhaps thinking of how your #1 website guru says that Genesis is correct because the flood really happened ergo evolution is false ...

I have to laugh at anyone who says the bibul should not be taken literally.

Since the bibul has no real meaning at all, literal or otherwise, it is a waste of time to print it, as it belongs in the dark corner of a museum. What needs to be said is that it is an almost complete waste of time to use your eyesight to read it at all. It is just a tool used to lay a guilt trip on people and to force morality on people.

"Don't take the bibul literally" is a very dumb statement, it should be replaced by "don't waste your time in the bibul at all"

Read Asimov or Huxley instead.

hrmn...

do you consider the known and measured incidence of random mutation to gametogenic DNA due to radiation, chemical exposure, viral infection, and other causes to be "theoretical"?

do you consider the known fact that mutations can be recessive, non-lethal, beneficial, subliminal under some conditions but distinct in others (careful: I carry SEVERAL inherited mutations of this sort), as well as harmful, dominant, and lethal to be "theoretical"?

do you consider the observable fact that geographically separated individuals tend not to interbreed anywhere near as often as they do with readily accessable individuals to be "theoretical"?

do you consider the observable fact that these above givens lead to concentrations of genetic mutations unique to or at least quite distinctive of populations in one region but not in another to be "theoretical"?

do you consider the observable fact that these above givens lead to genetically distinct sub-populations to be "theoretical"?

do you believe that genetic sequencing pinpointing the time when a mutation or set of characteristics arrived in a particular population through genetic assay of the remains of ancestors to be "theoretical"?

forgive me if I err, but it truly does seem to me that you consider "theoretical" any evidence which counters your worldview.