No, my argument in those posts was based upon the condition for the absolute falsification of Evolution as given to me by Physicist. My argument dealt that condition a fatal blow. Your complaint about my argument being based on other premises is flawed. I can certainly understand why you made those complaints, but the real problem is that the condition for falsification was itself flawed.
To wit: Physicist really didn't mean what he said that providing an example of non "Natural Selection" speciation would refute Evolution. Of course it is easy to give an example of non Natural Selection speciation (and I did so), as it is being done in labs across the USA today.
Yet what else could I do. He gave his condition for falsification, and I gave the example that complied with it.
If his falsification condition was scientific and correct, then my example would have disproved Evolutionary theory (that's the nature of meeting falsification conditions, by definition, after all).
Ask yourself if my example met his condition. If so, and if Evolution still isn't disproved, then the problem exists with the falsification condition, not with my logic or example.
It also means that Physicist still needs to give a viable falsification condition for Evolutionary Theory, lest the theory be junked as unscientific...
No it didn't, you did not offer an example that met his condition. The idea that human genetic engineering NOW somehow refutes natural selection as a process in the PAST, is silly. If you think it is responsive that is your fault, not his.
Physicist specifically said "natural speciation" other than natural selection, a distinction you ignored.
FWIW, if physicist intended to say that showing an alternative natural cause for speciation was sufficient to falsify natural selection, then I don't think I agree with that. But you did not meet his conditions in any case.