Every single sentence is based on false assumptions so I’ll discuss the first part of the site first.
“The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the “survival of the fittest” theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs.”
You would be interested to know that Darwin wrote his 1842 monograph on this very subject. To make a long discussion short, here is a summary of Darwin’s theory of evolution (reference Fututma et al):
1. Evolution as such is the proposition that the characteristics of lineages of organisms change over time.
2. Common descent. Species diverged from common ancestors and that all of life could be portrayed as one great family tree. (hint: cats and dogs are much diverged)
3. Gradualism. The differences between even radically different organisms.
4. Population change. Evolution occurs by changes in the proportions of individuals within a population that have different inherited characteristics.
5. Natural Selection. Changes in the proportions of different types of individuals are caused by differences in their ability to survive and reproduce- and that such changes result in the evolution of adaptations, features that appear designed to fit organisms to their environment.
“The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits.”
The word is “recessive” and the discovery and study of DNA has rendered the terms “dominance” and “recessiveness” too simple to be useful. Did you know that the “dominant” trait for humans is 6 fingers, not 5? ;)
“Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit.”
What is a “DNA limit”?
“DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection.”
It goes without mentioning that DNA changes plenty but that might not be what the author means to say here. The author seems to be saying that DNA changes cannot result in speciation by natural selection. That is true. Natural selection alone does not necessarily result in speciation. The most accpeted modern biological species concept is the following by Ernst Mayer (1942):
“Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
Also, as in the case of ring species, they need not be 100% reproductively isolated. Also some important things to consider:
1. Variation within populations. Characteristics vary among the members of a single population of interbreeding individuals. For example, the white and blue forms of the snow goose, known to be born to the same mother, represent a genetic polymorphism, not different species. A mutation that causes a fruit fly to have four wings rather than two is just that: a mutation, not a new species.
2. Geographic variation. Populations of a species differ; there exists a spectrum from slight to great difference; and intermediate forms, providing evidence of interbreeding, are often found where such populations meet. Human populations are a conspicuous example.
3. Sibling species. Sibling species are reproductively isolated populations that are difficult or impossible to distinguish by morphological features, but which are often recognized by differences in ecology, behavior, chromosomes, or other such characters.
The speciation (origin of two species from a common ancestral species) consists of the evolution of biological barriers to gene flow.
“Evolution not a scientific law and no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way.”
Yes, that’s true. Evolution is not a law but a theory and nothing in science is ever absolutely proven. A theory has a very high confidence because of massive evidence (raw data) in its favor and the absence of contradictory evidence. Evolution could be completely wrong but it doesn’t look that way at this point in science’s history.
“In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.”
We cannot wield all the powers of God. Does that mean that God does not exist?
I’ll write more later. Let me know if you have any questions.
“Every single sentence is based on false assumptions [...] “Evolution not a scientific law and no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way.”
Yes, that’s true.
“
A contradiction. So your first statement was just hyperbole; falsehood, intended to mislead & distort?
It seems that the male sexual member has a corkscrew twist to it. So too does the female duct, except it's the OPPOSITE THREAD.
They are able to breed if and only if the female gets really, really relaxed.
Now, think about it ~ corkscrew structure, opposite threads, and still one species.
It's beginning to look like we know less and less about more and more and still no resolution of what breeding constraints help establish a separate species!