[BroJoeK]

annalex: "Prove the hypothesis by making one species from another: one distinct species from another distinct species."

That is meaningless "word salad" because:

1. "Descent with modifications", the first key element of evolution is not a "hypothesis", it's a many-times observed and confirmed fact.
   In one example, random DNA mutations in humans were counted at circa 60 per generation (out of 3 billion "base pairs").

2. "Natural selection", the second key element of evolution is also not a "hypothesis", it's a many-times observed and confirmed fact.
   Natural selection weeds out harmful mutations, and promotes beneficial changes.

3. Evolution itself (both "micro" and "macro") is not just a "hypothesis", it's a many-times confirmed theory, confirmed by the fossil record, by DNA analyses, and by inputs from other branches of science -- from geology, to physics, biology, astronomy and others.

4. While so-called "micro-evolution" can be seen and measured happening one generation at a time -- i.e., 60 random mutations per generation -- fossil and DNA records show major changes, so-called "macro-evolution", or in your word-salad "distinct species", may require millions of new alleles and so take millions of generations.

5. But even short-term human-directed "micro-evolution" can produce the very first steps in speciation -- new breeds in animals, cultivars and varieties in plants.
   And some of these are already so different from their original species, they begin to meet the criteria for "separate species" which do not interbreed.

6. This is confirmed among other methods, by counting up the DNA changes (called "alleles") among related sub-species, species, genera, etc.

7. Bottom line: aside from outright gene-splicing, there is no hypothesis, theory or fact which says that humans can in a short time simulate long-term natural evolution of large organisms -- creating in a lab over just a few generations what in nature took millions of years.
   So, such an event could not be science, so much as magic.

annalex: "The last post of yours, by the way, was another example of arguing about words rather than about substance."

Precise definitions and usage of words are extraordinarily important in science, else communication amongst scientists would be impossible.
The fact that you have no understanding, and no respect for word definitions dictates the efforts I put into unscrambling your otherwise meaningless "word-salads".

annalex: "confirmed by your fellow cultists and believed by your fellow cultists."

Your continued ridiculous anti-science epithets ("cult", "voodoo"), combined with your repeated demand that science, in effect, perform a magic trick in a laboratory, help confirm my hypothesis that you misunderstand and loathe science itself.

So you may be beyond any help I could provide here, FRiend.

[annalex]

random DNA mutations in humans were counted at circa 60 per generation

It is about one month and you are not past the main point of criticism that I set forth on this thread. No one argues that random mutations do not occur. Please read back my posts and figure out what the objection to your theories is.

"Natural selection", the second key element of evolution is also not a "hypothesis", it's a many-times observed and confirmed fact.

Ditto, no one does indeed. I certainly don't. Read back and find where I denied natural selection leading to breeds or subspecies, -- and that is where it has been observed "many times".

begin to meet the criteria

Now that IS a word salad. The criteria are a funny thing: they are either met or not met.

counting up the DNA changes

Or tea leaves. Have you tried tea leaves? 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.

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.

you have no understanding, and no respect for word definitions

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.

demand that science, in effect, perform a magic trick in a laboratory

That really takes the cake. Ever heard that in science hypotheses ARE proven by experimentation? I ALLOWED for laboratory setting to accelerate your experiment. If you instead endeavor to conduct the necessary experiments in the wild, good luck.