[annalex]

this example [with three breeds of zebras, one claimed to be a separate species] clearly illustrates the point that speciation in nature is not a simple matter of one mutation crossing a "species boundary".

I did't not say it was simple. If your third breed of zebra eventually retains the ability to produce viable offspring and a stable colony within that breed, and completely loses the ability to interbreed with both other two in a lab setting, you will have speciation. So far, you have a breed that is distant from other two, but still the same genome, since interbred offspring is possible.

When two different sub-species no longer interbreed [in nature], then they are classified by science as two separate species.

So that "scientific" definition cannot be used to define the boundary (it is also logically meaningless because it depends on sexual behavior rather than on the genome). I defined the boundary that, I postulate, does not get crossed differently. Deal with it.

my theological belief

The point remains that there are two experiments possible, one with random mutations (for example using a lottery machine) and the other with directed mutations. Each will be useful to turn evolution into something resembling science, but each will prove a different thing compared to the other.

humans working to develop new breeds

Breeds, yes. Species, no, at least not species in the sense I prefer to use the term. Please pay attention to the matter being discussed.

1-4

Repeating your fantasies does not constitute a proof from observation. Breeds are fluid, species are not.

you claim science is a "cult"

I don't. I love, understand, and respect science. Evolution is not science. Once upon a time, -- when genetics were not known, roughly at the time of Darwin, -- it was a plausible scientific hypothesis, made in absence of real knowledge. Now, it is nothing but a cult. One of the characteristic of a cult is that it uses camouflage to look like something respectable, in this case, to look like science. Another is that the arguments are not done straight: for example, the same questionable claim (that breeding is speciation) is repeated as if it is not in dispute. And here you try to slander me as an enemy of science. Please find on this thread where I called science a cult, or retract your slander.

[BroJoeK]

annalex commenting on BJK quote: "...this example [with three breeds of zebras, one claimed to be a separate species]... "

Obviously you don't understand, and that has to be at least half of your problem here.
I've provided you with numerous links to high-school level explanations of what biological sciences are all about, but you haven't read them, have you?
And the result is, you don't understand the difference even between a breed & sub-species, much less species & genera, do you?

Really, if you are going to pretend you have "scientific" objections to evolution, you should at least study some basic science, FRiend.

So (sigh) here we go again:

1. a breed in animals (i.e., dogs, horses), or cultivar in plants (i.e., most garden flowers), is a man-made sub-grouping, below the level of sub-species in animals or variety in plants.
   Breeds and cultivars do not exist in nature and can normally interbreed.

   There are no "breeds" of Zebras in nature.
   The lowest level of differentiation among Zebras is a sub-species.

2. Sub-species in animals, or varieties in plants are naturally occurring groups which look different, but do still interbreed.

   Among Zebras there are five living sub-species of plains-zebras, two of mountain-zebras and one separate species, Grevy's.
   The related Zebra sub-species can interbreed in nature, but those of different species do not.

3. Different species in nature do not normally interbreed, though they can often be forced in captivity.
   However, in the case of the Grevy's species, attempts to interbreed with mountain-zebra species were not successful.

   So "species" classifications do not mean "impossible" to interbreed, only increasingly difficult.

4. Different genera in nature (i.e., African & Asian Elephants) do not interbreed and usually cannot even be forced in captivity.
   So, at the level of genera your imaginary "species boundary" is becoming not just a matter of "difficulty" but near to "impossibility".

   But even among different genera in the same family interbreeding is not always impossible, example: "beefalo" hybrid from genus bos cattle and genus bison buffalo.
   But this is only done in captivity, never seen in nature.

5. While different genera in the same family have occasionally been interbreed, there are no examples of different families in the same order producing offspring, viable or not.
   So, at the family-order level after many millions of years, evolution has made different species so different that no amount of coaxing can get them to produce viable offspring.

You might put it this way: what does not exist ("species boundary") among man-made breeds, begins with a slight reluctance to interbreed among natural sub-species, considerable difficulty among different species in the same genus, near impossibility among different genera in the same biological family, and total impossibility among different families in the same order.
As organisms become more-and-more separated by evolution, interbreeding becomes more-and-more difficult -- a "species reluctance" becomes a weak "species boundary" which eventually becomes an impenitrable "species border".

annalex: "...but still the same genome..."

Really, you need to crack a book and learn something of what you keep talking about.
"Genome" is not a biological classification.
Start by studying this.

annalex: "So that "scientific" definition cannot be used to define the boundary (it is also logically meaningless because it depends on sexual behavior rather than on the genome).
I defined the boundary that, I postulate, does not get crossed differently.
Deal with it."

You have really defined nothing, so there is nothing to "deal with".
But I have now explained -- over and over -- such reality as might correspond to some notions of "reluctance" or "boundary" or "reinforced border" preventing different species from interbreeding.

But even the previously "reinforced border" separating different biological families in the same order has already been penetrated by genetic engineers.
Today there are farmers raising genetically modified livestock bred to produce chemicals that come from genes of organisms in an entirely different biological Kingdom.

The point, yet again, is: in the long run, there are no "boundaries" or "borders", but only a question of the degree of difficulty in producing "viable" offspring.

annalex: "The point remains that there are two experiments possible, one with random mutations..."

No, not "possible".
Sure, I can also design an "experiment", requiring a very long lever that could be used to prove the claim by that ancient Greek Archimedes (circa 250 BC) that:

"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."

And I can stick my head in the sand and shout to all the world that until such an "experiment" is actually performed, then Archimedes is a liar, his ideas are just a "cult" and he nothing more than a "cult authority"!
And that would make as much logical sense as what you propose.

annalex: "Breeds, yes. Species, no, at least not species in the sense I prefer to use the term.
Please pay attention to the matter being discussed. "

No FRiend, you pay close attention -- to actual words with actual definitions.
In any reasoned conversation, especially on science, you don't get the right to invent your own words with your own definitions.
You have to use the accepted language that's given us, or no serious conversation is possible.

And I'm sorry to say it, but until you study and learn the real language of science, all you're doing is jabbering nonsense here.

annalex: "Breeds are fluid, species are not."

Species are just as "fluid" as breeds, but with more difficulty and over longer periods of time.

annalex: "I love, understand, and respect science."

No, as you've demonstrated here in post after post, you know nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about real science, and you despise what you think you do know.

annalex: "And here you try to slander me as an enemy of science.
Please find on this thread where I called science a cult, or retract your slander."

Your refusal to learn, and repeated mis-characterizations of even the grade-school basics of biological classifications, demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that you despise science itself, not "just" evolution.

Your claim that evolution is a "cult" is a slander on all of science -- since evolution is an integral part of science, and cannot be separated without destroying all of science -- and that makes you, in your word, an "enemy" of science.

You should retract all of it, and apologize for being so misguided.
Then crack a book. Learn something, FRiend. ;-)