I'm not going too far into this argument, simply because crevo debates are not my 'hobby', so to speak.
But here's a big problem I have with it- no empirical evidence.
Never has it been demonstrated that an isolated population will mutate into a different species that can no longer breed with the larger population. Sure, organisms adapt and change behaviors and characteristics, but on a cellular level, the proliferation of species is not explained by mutation.
Even a demonstration of how this works with simple life forms would suffice. With all the gene splicing that's coming along, I would think that evolutionists could produce results in the lab that support their position.
Never has it been demonstrated that an isolated population will mutate into a different species that can no longer breed with the larger population.
Sure it has (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), etc. etc. etc.
Sure, organisms adapt and change behaviors and characteristics, but on a cellular level, the proliferation of species is not explained by mutation.
You don't say... (2), (3), (4), etc.
Even a demonstration of how this works with simple life forms would suffice.
Here you go. (2), (3), (4), etc. etc.
With all the gene splicing that's coming along, I would think that evolutionists could produce results in the lab that support their position.
You mean like this, for example? HARNESSING THE POWER OF EVOLUTION TO CREATE NANOSCALE BIOSENSORS. Or how about: Directed evolution of a fucosidase from a galactosidase by DNA shuffling and screening. Or maybe: Outrunning Nature: Directed Evolution of Superior Biocatalysts. And so on.
Contrary to the claims of anti-evolutionists, evolution *works*.