Scientific, archaeological, current events proof of bible!

[bu villain]

I said nothing of the sort. DNA has mutations, but by the vast majority, they are not considered more than mildly beneficial, at best. Most mutations are a detriment, or of no consequence..

Agreed. I guess I misunderstood your previous post on this. It is the rare, mildly beneficial changes which over immense stretches of time which evolutionary theory credits for evolving traits.

Did you read all the way to the end? Even evolutionary biologists were not convinced. It was a hybrid - which is common when you mate two different sunflowers. The important part of the study (and his work still on-going today), was that he successfully reproduced the same genetic change 3 times of breeding. In reality, it is similar to the mating the two different species of a donkey and horse - in that case you get a mule, all males are infertile, and cannot reproduce a new species. The difference here was that his flower was extremely similar to the existing wild sunflower - which does continue to reproduce. So, did selective breeding of a hybrid help it evolve to a higher level (i.e. - the benefit that evolution makes claim to)? The answer is - no, no benefit that we know of - yet. I do like the research program though, and am all for it. Like I said before, I do not want them to stop researching possibilities, I just don't agree that the current data supports the current theory (theories can be rewritten though). As most evolutionary biologist will state themselves, replication is much more complex on animals than plants..

I took this article as more like a proof of concept rather than a be all end all of evolution. If you look at dog breeds, they are getting to the point where certain breeds could never realistically mate with other breeds (e.g., chihuahua and great dane). I know this is not a perfect example but it seems plausable to me that a continued divergence of those two types of dogs could eventually lead to them being considered different species since usually a species is defined as a group which can reproduce fertile offspring.

You should question it. The majority of current thesis on evolutionary biology are flawed from being based upon an incorrectly calculated report.

As I stated before, I do question it. Otherwise, why would I read books on it or continue this discussion with you. Don't mistake my being convinced by the arguments as I understand them for unquestioning faith.

Evolutionary biologists start with an agenda, rather than observation. That is no different than trusting a random individual on the street - both try to sell something. For that matter, religious zealots try to do the same thing - sell their unproven beliefs. In their own minds, they make perfect sense..

And this seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't believe evolutionary biologists start with an agenda anymore than any chemist, physicist or any other biologist.

BTW - I apologize for not responding sooner. I didn't notice your reply until now. I was not ignoring you.

Haha, no need to apologize. We could probably go on indefinitely. It's perfectly understandable that evolutionary debates on IA are not your foremost concern. Even though we disagree I respect that your position comes from your interpretation of the evidence rather than blind disbelief. Skepticism is the most important driver of scientific discovery!