So, even you acknowledge that interbreeding between different species is impossible. And therefore a dead-end according to your model. Thank you, I do feel we are finally making some progress towards truth! :-)
The problem with any non-repeatable, unobservable, highly abstract theorizing like this is that it is simultaneously untestable and proves nothing. Such a theory, even if false, might still have a feeble value if it could predict or model what we actually observe. (Such a limited scientific value would be similar to prior incorrect models of the heavenly bodies.) But the abstract, unobserved, untestable and unreproducible theory of evolution across species has been found of little worth in improving men's lives and also does not even help us begin to understand the creation of life.
Contrast that with a scientific approach pursued by a God fearing Louis Pasteur (a contemporary of Darwin) who concretely benefited all of mankind.
Thankfully, Louis Pasteur put to rest the evolutionary nonsense of spontaneous generation from rotten meat that was strongly held in his time.
I've heard it said "A frog plus a kiss = prince"...such a thing is clearly a fairy tale. But "An (allegorical) frog plus a hundred million years = prince", this is "science". No, it's only science falsely so called.
What we see in truth is a marvelous panoply of intricate designs that vary in tiny ways to form the individual, within set limits of the species. Species that men can't even begin to duplicate from scratch! Amazing, wonderfully complex (yet spectacularly adaptable!) designs that reflect the splendid brilliance of nature's God!
Evolution cannot even begin to explain the genesis of life!
Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
My original point still stands: it is not in least bit foolish to consider there was a superseding set of laws in operation when the earth was formed and God created life, perhaps like aerodynamics supersede gravity.
Genesis 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
“Thankfully, Louis Pasteur put to rest the evolutionary nonsense of spontaneous generation from rotten meat that was strongly held in his time.”
The sooner you accept the fact that the theory of evolution doesn’t have anything to do with the origin of life, the sooner we can move on to an actual exchange of ideas.
Evolution needs life to occur. Anything that happened before life began, up to and including its actual origin, does not fall under the theory of evolution.
Oh, and
“I’ve heard it said “A frog plus a kiss = prince”...such a thing is clearly a fairy tale. But “An (allegorical) frog plus a hundred million years = prince”, this is “science”. No, it’s only science falsely so called.”
You could at least attribute this to the author, Dr. Duane Gish.
That is a most curious argument.
Self-evidently, some critter-groups readily interbreed, others only reluctantly, and still others cannot be forced to interbreed under any conditions.
Normal scientific conventions identify groups which easily interbreed as different breeds or sub-species -- i.e., breeds of Dogs, sub-species of, say, Zebras.
If different groups interbreed only rarely, and unusually, then they get classified as separate species -- for example, Polar Bears and Brown Bears are known to occasionally interbreed in the wild, and are therefore classified as separate species.
When related groups can no longer interbreed, then they will be classified in a different genus, family, order, class, etc. depending on their degrees of separation from each other.
An example is Elephants -- African versus Asian.
They can't successfully interbreed, so are classified as different genera within the elephantidae family.
Within the African elephant genus are two species -- Bush and Forest Elephants.
Those are believed capable of interbreeding, though it has never been seen in the wild.
And the same is true of the three Asian Elephant sub-species.
By contrast, again consider Polar and Brown Bears -- once in separate genera, were recently reclassified as different species within the genus Ursus.
One reason is: they were found to have successfully interbred in the wild.
Point is: the scientific definition of "species" does not mean "impossible to interbreed with others", only unusual and/or difficult.
"Impossible" does not begin until the genus level, but even then some species in different genera can be forced to interbreed and produce viable offspring.
The example of beefalos comes to mind.
mbj: "The problem with any non-repeatable, unobservable, highly abstract theorizing like this is that it is simultaneously untestable and proves nothing."
Well... First of all, in formal scientific terms, no theory is ever "proved", so if you require "proof", then you won't find it in science.
Instead, science offers hypotheses which are explanations that can be falsified or confirmed through their predictions.
Second, examples of unconfirmed hypotheses are abiogenic and/or panspermic origins of life.
Scientists have looked and worked for decades to find confirming evidence, with limited success.
Third, when hypotheses are adequately confirmed, they are called theories.
Examples include theories of evolution and "old earth" time scales.
Now apparently you are claiming these theories have no value -- they "prove nothing", you say.
In fact, they are fundamental to our scientific understandings of nature and life.
Without them, we would comprehend very little of the world around us.
mbj: "Such a theory, even if false, might still have a feeble value if it could predict or model what we actually observe.
(Such a limited scientific value would be similar to prior incorrect models of the heavenly bodies.)
But the abstract, unobserved, untestable and unreproducible theory of evolution across species has been found of little worth in improving men's lives and also does not even help us begin to understand the creation of life."
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
First, the basic evolution idea (descent with modifications, natural selection) is not "abstract, unobserved, untestable and unreproducible" -- just the opposite, those are observed & confirmed facts.
Second, all of our understandings of genetics are based on evolution: i.e., how to improve farm animal breeds & crop varieties, are based on replacing evolution's "natural selection" with human selection.
Third, all of our understandings of DNA and the relationships among various life forms are built on the Evolution Theory model.
Fourth, evolution is confirmed by many other branches of science, and in return informs them.
For one example, understanding the Earth's age and geological "evolution" are essential to finding various mineral resources.
mbj: "Thankfully, Louis Pasteur put to rest the evolutionary nonsense of spontaneous generation from rotten meat that was strongly held in his time."
First, it's important to understand that the older Darwin himself knew nothing about genetics or DNA -- all that evolution-confirming evidence came later.
Nor did Darwin invent the idea of "spontaneous generation."
The younger Pasteur's work helped debunk that very old idea, and nobody since then has been able to demonstrate abiogenic origins of life -- though many have tried, and still try today.
Abiogenisis (like panspermia) remains an intriguing but unconfirmed scientific hypothesis.
mbj: "But 'An (allegorical) frog plus a hundred million years = prince', this is 'science'.
No, it's only science falsely so called."
Of course, no scientist has ever said exactly that, so the "falseness" is a figment of your imagination.
What the fossil, radio-metric & DNA records show is:
On average, large species lasted around a million years before either going extinct or significantly changing, so we are talking about at least hundreds of different species separating ourselves from the last common ancestor with frogs.
mbj: "What we see in truth is a marvelous panoply of intricate designs that vary in tiny ways to form the individual, within set limits of the species.
Species that men can't even begin to duplicate from scratch!
Amazing, wonderfully complex (yet spectacularly adaptable!) designs that reflect the splendid brilliance of nature's God!"
All true except that fossil & DNA evidence suggests: over long time periods there are no "set limits of the species".
Instead, there is a more-or-less average rate of genetic mutations which over time can result in modified life forms.
Over very long times, those new forms no longer interbreed and so are classified by scientists as new species, genera, families, etc.
mbj: "Evolution cannot even begin to explain the genesis of life!"
Basic evolution is not a theory of life's very beginning.
Only in a metaphorical sense -- such as we might say, "the Universe has evolved" or "the solar system evolved", neither having to do with biological evolution -- can we say "life's origin evolved".
How life might have originated is a subject of several unconfirmed hypotheses, any of which, as of today, are equally likely, or unlikely.
mbj: "My original point still stands: it is not in least bit foolish to consider there was a superseding set of laws in operation when the earth was formed and God created life, perhaps like aerodynamics supersede gravity."
Sure, that might have happened, and if it is necessary to your religious faith that it did happen, I'd say that's fine.
But by definition of the word "science", it's impossible -- or more precisely: it's not scientific.
Since science, by definition, is: "natural explanations for natural processes", and can only deal with real evidence, then regardless of your religious convictions, your suggestion has no scientific validity.
mbj: I have not been following this discussion at all. I lost all interest in evolution-related threads after witnessing a simply extraordinary level of dishonesty on them. I can’t tell you what to do, obviously, & wouldn’t presume to. If I were you, however, I’d shake the dust off my shoes & spend the valuable time God has given me elsewhere. Fwiw.