[StJacques]

"If evolution is such a lock, why is it that there is not one documented instance in the past 200 years of a member of one species giving birth to a completely new species with a different genetic code?"

As estimated by evolutionary biologists, the development of a new species must take at least thousands of years for a sufficient number of mutations to alter the genetic code sufficiently to identify a new species.

So the real question is not "why is it that there is not one documented instance in the past 200 years of a member of one species giving birth to a completely new species with a different genetic code?" but rather "do we have documented instances of mutations across a variety of living species that are sufficient to establish a factual basis that, given the postulated length of time required to form a new species, evolutionary development is plausible?" And the answer to the second question is a resounding "yes."

[Carling]

So the real question is not "why is it that there is not one documented instance in the past 200 years of a member of one species giving birth to a completely new species with a different genetic code?" but rather "do we have documented instances of mutations across a variety of living species that are sufficient to establish a factual basis that, given the postulated length of time required to form a new species, evolutionary development is plausible?" And the answer to the second question is a resounding "yes."

Did I ever say it wasn't plausible? Even with all of your fancy words and big sentences, you never showed me where evolution is FACT. Is it plausible? Of course. Is it the most plausible explanation available scientifically. Sure. Problem is, it is unproven scientifically to my satisfaction for me to call it a FACT. And the fact is, there are many scientists who won't go so far as to call evolution the FACTUAL reason for life on this planet.

[Texas Songwriter]

Screw a donkey to a horse and you get a sterile mule. So it is with most cases of extraspecies crosses. Its convienent to say but it doesn't work in real life.

[Erik Latranyi]

"do we have documented instances of mutations across a variety of living species that are sufficient to establish a factual basis that, given the postulated length of time required to form a new species, evolutionary development is plausible?"

But Darwin asserts that these mutations are random in nature and not "programmed". Unfortunately, we do not see random mutation since that would quickly lead to the extinction of every living thing on the planet.

Intelligent Design (ID) asserts that the mutations are programmed in and somehow intelligent in their direction.

[frgoff]

---
As estimated by evolutionary biologists, the development of a new species must take at least thousands of years for a sufficient number of mutations to alter the genetic code sufficiently to identify a new species.
---

In a steady state process, such as evolution, time cancels out of the equation. Since speciation should be occuring on a continual basis it should be at ALL stages at any given point in time throughout the biosphere, and we should be able to see it by taking a representative sample.

The fact that we don't is a major predictive problem with the theory of evolution.