I don't mean this as an insult, but our interpretation of the facts are vastly different.
You wrote... "You're making a false straw-man argument, you misrepresent what evolution theory actually says."
I didn't say a word about what "evolution theory says". I shared my opinion about what I believe happened. I don't think genes were ever modified to lead one species into being a separate species. That's all I said. So no straw man at all.
You went on to write... "In fact, before they were birds, their ancestors were a form of reptile, and the transition to birds took many millions of years -- that's what the fossil record confirms."
I look at the fossil record and without your pre-belief in the TOE, I see a very different meaning.
In short, as I said when you first posted to me, I have a vastly different view of the meaning and interpretation of facts than you accept. Best.
First, we know for certain, because we carefully studied it, that every generation is born with a small number of genetic modifications, most of them harmless or harmful, rarely helpful.
Over many, many generations these mutations accumulate until at some point two sub-species may no longer interbreed.
And, by definition, new species are created whenever two sub-species accumulate so many DNA differences they no longer normally interbreed.
That can be seen everywhere in nature and can even be forced in laboratories.
It's no big deal.
Indeed, as I pointed out in previous posts (i.e., #48), mankind created its first new species when it began breeding dogs from wolves, circa 30,000 years ago.
Today dogs are classified as one of ten different wolf species.
aMorePerfectUnion: "I look at the fossil record and without your pre-belief in the TOE, I see a very different meaning. "
Only by selectively seeing what you wish to see and ignoring everything else, FRiend.