In re "But that is precisely the point. These experiments are not about "a fly producing a fly", etc. They are about a fly producing a DIFFERENT species of fly. I would not expect you to read all of those papers I linked to (we all have lives outside ATOT, right? ) but you might try one or two. Reish's experiment with polychaetes is a classic example (I think you can find details in Weinberg's 1992 paper). He took polychaetes from one locale and grew them under different environmental conditions than the original population. After a long time (decades, I think, but I could be wrong) specimens from two natural locations plus the population originally founded by Reish were randomly interbred and it was found that only Reish's polychaetes were unable to reproduce with specimens from the other populations. How would you explain this phenomena if not by evolution? Or are you using a different definition of "species" not based upon interbreeding?"
Actually I did look at most if not all of those papers you sited with your two links. However, your addition of the words "a DIFFERENT species of" does not change the fact that a fly is producing a fly, etc. If the papers would have said that a fly produced a moth then you'd have an argument but as it stands, you don't.
As I have stated before in this thread, I fundamentally believe the King James Bible is the literal word of God, and as such I believe in evolution, if by evolution you mean a change in the gene pool. The bible clearly states that after the global flood, Noah's 3 sons and their wives repopulated the earth, and a walk through any big city will quickly afirm that there are many variations in the gene pool of man. However that is precisely as God stated would be the case some 3600 years ago.
"And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread." Genesis 9:18-19
In re "You are exagerrating. Two dogs never have produced a cat directly. In fact, AFAIK cats and dogs are not directly descended from each other at all. They merely share a recent common ancestor that may have appeared quite different from either of them. The mutations responsible for their divergent evolution accumulated over many thousands of generations."
So me stating that "two dogs produced a cat" is an exageration, but your belief that a single celled organism is responsible for all the different kinds of plants, winged fowl, beasts, creeping thing, etc. is not? A far more ridiculous notion than my "two dogs producing a cat" example, yet again is stated day in and day out as if by repeating the lie eventually it will be true. ( Much in the same way a state run news station of a country at war will daily go on television assuring the people that they are "winning the war" while it is quite clear from our television sets that their country is being dessimated by the allied forces, the only difference is that this theory of evolution is a world wide phenomena. )
In re "My fellow deceivers and I await your return with bated breath."
Aside from the few scientists which are fully aware that there is no evidence of evolution and yet go on promoting the lie with the belief (faith) that it will one day be proven true, the vast majority of the individuals who believe it are the ones who are decieved. After all you (I also) were taught evolution ( humans descended from apes, etc., etc. ) as a fact all through school, on tv, in the paper, etc., why would you doubt it? [Edit: While at work today I kept thinking about the words I used and how other words would better convey the thought I wanted to get across, and as such, I must needs feel a correction is in order.] Because what if what the Bible says is true, and one day you will have to stand before God and answer to him. Personally, on the off chance that what the bible said was true, I wanted to make sure that the evidence for evolution (and against God) which I was taught and accepted as true was indicative of the evidence which exists. So I began to demand more than just the conclusions of scientists who had (like nearly everyone else) been indoctrinated with the belief that evolution was no longer a theory, but a given. I wanted facts, I wanted to know what facts led those scientists to the conclusions they made. And in so doing, I realized all the so-called evidence doesn't actually exist. All the evidence is based on assumptions. Thus, it became obvious that Satan is the God of this world, as the bible contends, whose goal is to convince the world that God doesn't exist, and in so doing secure the same fate for all those who choose to be willingly ignorant of the truth, as for himself. How else could it be possible that the vast majority of the world is convinced evolution is true (and thus the God of the bible doesn't exist) if there is no actual evidence to support such a theory.
Allow me to quote a few exerts (blatent lies, for "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee , and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.") from one of my favorite books as a child "Early Man" by Life Nature Library 1968:
"The story of creation, as told in the Bible, is a fine case in point. It is seldom taken literally now. Its simple, sweeping concepts are interpreted by most modern Christians and Jews as being symbolic of the spirit and majesty of God. The world, in effect, was not created in six days even though the Bible says it was" blah blah, blah blah, blah blah. page 9-10
"It is now a proven scientific fact that man was millions of years in the making. The path of his evolution is maked by dead ends and new beginnings, the wayside strewn with relics of his various forms." etc., etc. page 39
"Almost the entire Pliocene for reasons that science is still trying ot explain, is a total blank as far as human ancestors are concerned. For some 10 million years that exasperating and cryptic epoch lasted, and during it profound evolutionary changes occurred among certain of the higheer primates. New creatures emerged, primates unlike any that lived before. No longer forest apes, they made their living increasingly on the open plains, moving erect on two legs.
The importance of bipedalism--two-leggedness--cannot be overestimated. It is much more than a mere rearing up and running about." etc., etc. page 47
Dave
PS I appreciate the fact that even though this debate is by necessity a heated one, our replies need not be filled with slander and ignorance. As I was once a believer that evolution was a fact and fought bitterly with those who opposed its teachings.
It's like this guy at work, Matt, who I've talked to on occasion about this exact debate and he's always "yah, yah" nodding his head. Then today I mention to him about this debate I'm having here, saying how the earth is about six thousand years old, and he goes "well how do you explain this new 50 foot alligator that is millions of years old" and I go "Whatt" and he goes "yah, they carbon dated it to be __millions of years old" so I go "Oh, that's funny, because the maximum date from carbon dating is about 60,000 years old and it's always based on assumptions..."
Respectfully
Dave