AuldSoul
I apologize for my obtusity. I couldn't find where that site addressed anything except arguments I (for one) never put forward.
Perhaps you could show how that site you linked to "covers" my response.
As I give that link BEFORE I direct comments specifically at you, you are not being obtude, you are being something else entirely. I am providing commentary about that film, not about your comments on that film.
I didn't really enjoy having the well poisoned, so to speak,
No need to be so defensive; it isn't all about your argument you know
but have now been exposed to some of its contents in such a way that I cannot fairly deny whether its contents are partially informing some of my viewpoints.
Eh? So, you are objecting (ignoring your mistake in thinking I was talking about your comments) to me providing a commentary on a duplicitious hack job because now you've been exposed to it you can't deny that it's position is partially influencing yours.
Wrong is wrong. Sort it out man.
That's like someone supporting viewpoints put forth in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion objecting to someone showing it is a forgery because they "have now been exposed to some of its contents in such a way that I cannot fairly deny whether its contents are partially informing some of my viewpoints."
A horse cross-bred with an ass produces a mule. A mule cross-bred with a mule produces what? I never argued, if you examine my statement carefully, that mules are always infertile. I said, in essence, that mules are not a viable species in their own right. I daresay you would not disagree with what I said, would you?
You actually said;
I believe that is why horses and asses can be bred to make a mule, but a male and female mule can't breed to make another mule.
I didn't say you specifically exluded any possibility of a mule breeding, I just corrected the absolute nature of your above quoted statement by noting in passing that trans-species corssbreds are sometime fertile. I did not claim mules were a species.
I showed the error in your thinking (mixing of two seperate gene pools being compared to mixing of same gene pool).
You have avoided address this major, gaping error in your argument.
I have also already provided an example (a very elementary one; not knowing about ring species when commenting on evolution is like not knowing the off-side rule when commenting on football) that shows extraspecial evolution takes place.
Instead of being so defensive I suggest you do the research suggested and come back to the discussion.
You obviously take care to inform yourself about how to defend opinions you have. Now whether you are willing to look at the flaws in the arguments you put forward when they are pointed out to you is another question. Like I say above 'Obvious[ly] Creationists et. al. avoid looking at them.'
If it is established, prove it.
Don't you think it a trifle arrogant to assume that the vast majority of scientists are satisfied by the proof of speciation by evolution because they're sloppy and don;t look for real proof. Maybe the problem is that you don't know enough?
As there may be something wrong with your ability to look for contrary arguments to your own opinion, here's a starter pack;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Wow, Wikipedia, that took a loooooong time.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml
Ah, Google; took me a whole degree to learn to Google.
I am sorry for the sarcasm Auld. You may well take umbrage and use that as an excuse not to respond.
But you had already demonstrated a lack of willingness to inform yourself adequately to discuss this subject with competence by making such implicitly brash assumptions about the competence of the scientific community. You really only have yourself to blame. So temper my sarcasm with your arrogance, call it a draw, and do some research.
Someone in a pub making a hilariously misinformed statement whilst commenting on football would get laughed at, especially if they implied the commentators and referees got it wrong.
As in pub, so online.
That should be simple enough.
Yes, thus my reaction to you not knowing.
Back to the subject of known design . . . with the advent of Object Oriented Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Self-Modifying Code or Adaptive Code, comparisons which previously could not be effectively made between genetic code and known design can now be easily made. The great likelihood is that the more refined our known designs become in this vein of endeavor, the more closely similar examples of known design will become when compared with the sleek functionality of DNA, RNA, and mRNA.
I believe the wide variety of life that cannot mate but which shares a similar base set of code now has a very close parallel in known design
It is also predicted by evolutionary theory. Did you know that?