You have yet to make a coherent or cogent argument.
Random mutations are a confirmed fact which helps confirm evolution as a theory, not "hypothesis".
That's the reason I included this point in my list.
annalex: "Read back and find where I denied natural selection leading to breeds or subspecies, -- and that is where it has been observed "many times".
Anything often observed and confirmed is a fact, not a hypothesis.
The fact of natural selection is one foundation for the theory of evolution.
annalex: "Now that IS a word salad.
The criteria are a funny thing: they are either met or not met."
I have now many times explained the process and scientific criteria of speciation.
You have just as frequently jabbered "word salads" to the effect that you disagree and dislike scientific ideas on the subject.
In some of your more colorful language, you call them "voodoo" and "cults".
annalex: "You postulate that random mutations lead to speciation, then you count differnces in two different species and claim that these are "DNA changes"
They may just as soon be simply two genomes, not related to one another."
According to various studies there are thousands of mammal species, tens of thousands of bird, reptile and fish species and millions of other species.
In addition, thousands of extinct species have been identified from fossils.
But, no scientific fact, theory or hypothesis I know of claims that any or all of these species are not more or less distantly related.
Nor has any scientific hypothesis ever been proposed to explain how the earth might be populated by thousands and millions of unrelated species.
Occum's Razor among other ideas, suggests the simplest scientific explanation is best: all DNA driven species descended from common ancestors, some as far back as hundreds of millions of years ago.
annalex: "In short, if you cannot figure out what the argument against your hypothesis is, why do you waste your time and mine?
This makes true science look very, very bad."
Your anti-science "word salads" cannot possibly make "true science look very, very bad."
annalex: "Well, I will appreciate corrections, but at the same time, I am not a biologist.
If you cannot refute my posts other than by pointing out that here and there I used a layman's term, then again, this is what lawyers do, not what scientists do."
Interesting that you should pretend to know just "what scientists do," immediately after admitting that you are "not a biologist".
I would suggest a central disconnect in your reasoning: on the one hand you admit to no understanding of the basics of biological science (i.e., species classifications), while on the other hand you demand as "proof" of your misunderstandings of evolution theory, that scientists perform magic tricks in a laboratory, turning elephants into manatees, and zebras into monkeys.
And as long as scientists can't pull magic monkeys out of zebras, you'll insist science is all just "voodoo" and "cult".
I'm saying you speak "word salad" and thus cannot possibly harm real science.
As for my efforts here, it's likely true they waste your time, but I'm not yet convinced it wastes mine, FRiend. ;-)
annalex: "Ever heard that in science hypotheses ARE proven by experimentation?
I ALLOWED for laboratory setting to accelerate your experiment."
More "word salad."
Duh.
You've got a cult. Understand the argument, then get back to me. Incantations of your belief system won't work; you've posted them a number of times already and I pointed out what, exactly, needs a scientific proof, and what is indeed an observed fact.
I’ve often heard Drosophila flies used to foil the Theory of Evolution. The argument goes that experimenters cannot genetically alter them through natural selection or even gene manipulation into a new species. Is that correct?
Word Salad = Cognitive Dissonance
Global Warming = Evolution 2.0
Word Salad = Cognitive Dissonance
Global Warming = Evolution 2.0