The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Esquilax]

Natural selection is not a creative process. It can only choose from the existing material. No new material can be created through the process of natural selection. New material is required for a change in species. Therefore Natural selection is the mechanism by which a species will stay within its own species.

Hey dude? Mutations. Mutations add the new material. It's well documented that this happens, and since I told you this in my last post, I'm left to conclude that you're just lying with this bunch of bare assertions now.

We both have the same evidence but draw different conclusions affected by our own assumptions and presuppositions.

I don't have a presupposition, sir. A presupposition is a judgement you make in advance, that's what you are doing for your ideological reasons. I am free to accept the evidence for what it is, because I recognize that your false dichotomy about origins is incorrect; your god could still be out there, but evolution is still true.

Reference please.

Here you go. You may have to scroll down some, though this link does painstakingly explain what a species is before it goes into the examples, so you'll have no excuse if you do choose to misrepresent what goes on, here. Specifically, you might find the references in part 5.3 and on interesting, given that it specifically references animal speciation events without recourse to hybridizing them. Your goose has simply been cooked on this one.

Attack the person. I'm waiting for a relevant argument against the initial premise that "knowing the how of some truth is not a validation of said truth." You disagreed but have not provided a relevant statement of defense. No disrespect intended by using the word 'relevant'.

The question is "how was the universe formed?" Answering "god," is a surface level answer that doesn't tell us how, that's the problem.

Fallacy of appeal to motive, or an appeal to genetics. Their motives are irrelevant to the validity of their scientific findings. I don't presume AIG to be non-biased in that they (and I) stand upon the authority of the scriptures.

The issue is that AiG literally will not put science on their site if it conflicts with their worldview, and so any science they do host is ideologically biased from the beginning. Given the widespread acceptance of evolution among the scientific community, it's safe to say from the outset that anything said by an evolution-denial website that won't post anything that disagrees with them is incorrect science.

Leaving aside all that, when I posted a link to human chromosome 2 in the first place, that was the mainstream, accepted scientific research on the subject. Your link shows that one guy- who works for the institute of creation research, which is not an accredited scientific organization by the way- disagrees; whoop-de-doo. I don't care what one guy with a religious agenda thinks, I care what the science supports. Clearly, for some strange reason, all the other trained scientists have come to a different conclusion to the one guy whose paycheck is dependent on denying things that conflict with young earth ideas. I wonder why that is?

I also don't presume an atheist scientist to be non-biased because he/she presupposes no God. Both look at the same evidence but through their personal motives, which again is irrelevant to the validity of the scientific findings.

No, there is no presupposition of no god, I explained why that is in my last post, so I guess this is just another lie, or you didn't read what I said. Again, evolution being true says nothing about the existence of the christian god. Now drop this dishonest bullshit, okay?

Secondly you're faced with an issue of internal consistency. If you disregard findings soley based upon a personal bias, you have created your own personal bias and must reject your own findings. You've become self-refuting.

Except that I have no bias, bar that I reject junk science based on bad motives. And that's not a bias, in that it's justified by logic; biases are baseless, informed rejection of stupidity is not. Quit with the sophistry, it's making you look bad.

No new genetic information is created through mutation. It (new genetic material) would be required for evolution.

Do you think just asserting that means anything?

Incidentally, here's that claim of yours being debunked. This website has been around for ages, so you've made a claim that was already proven wrong. Bad form, shows you didn't bother researching anything before you made up your mind. That's a presupposition.

It can still be a gradual change as you say but there will still be a clear dividing line within one specific generation.

No, there won't, any more than you can look on a color spectrum and pick out the precise point one color becomes another. The example change we're discussing would be a series of small changes to the spinal and limb arrangement of the organism over time, eventually allowing them to walk on two legs slightly, then a little more, and a little more, and so on.

For evidence of this, I need only point to you yourself: humans have been walking upright for the entirety of our species' life, but did you know we still have a spinal column and nerves therein more suited to a hunched forward, quadrupedal movement pattern? It's true! The small changes that led up to our evolving bipedal motion still haven't finished happening yet.

A: The universe is the only known closed system.

Bare assertion, dismissed as such.

B: The laws present (if there are any) in a non-temporal exterior must operate independently and is irrelevant to a termporal universe. By definition, a closed system is not operated on by anything outside said system. It's closed.

You haven't demonstrated that it's a closed system, you just asserted it. Unproven premise, invalid conclusion. Dismissed.