Posted by GaDS on August 28, 1998 at 16:26:58:
As regards my query "Why haven't scientists in labs been able to duplicate in labs what supposedly occurs in nature" I was referring to the creation of life from non-life. If it happened before (as must believed by non-creationists) then it should be reproducible in the lab. I haven't heard of anyone claiming to have created even one living organism from non-living matter yet despite the resources and shortcuts available to them that Nature did not have. Nature, without purpose or direction, and yet was able to produce the biosphere of this world. Man, with purpose and intellect, hasn't been able to create even the simplest living cell.
But as regards the demonstrable reproduction of speciation, following up the link suggested covering the question of what constitutes speciation, I found it amusing (as well as irrelevant) that several definitions of species exist. Since at some point, according to evolutionists, all life descended from a common unicellular ancestor, speciation by artificial means should be able to satisfy any and all of those definitions since by whatever criterion you choose it is found in nature. For some to claim that reproductive viability is too confining a basis with which to define separate species is absurd, as sharks and elephants, two organisms supposedly derived from a common genetic ancestor, are accepted as two separate species and are clearly incapable of producing viable offspring by any means. Choosing to define certain subspecies (such as types of horses) as separate species despite their ability to interbreed still begs the question of those species which cannot interbreed. Unless one can demonstrate that a complete genetic spectrum, with each species able to viably breed with at least other species and covering the entire range of living organisms, exists, one must concede that Nature was able to create at least one species capable of procreating itself and yet reproductively distinct from all other existing species, thus breaking the genetic chain. "But wait!" evolutionists will cry. "Those common links went extinct long ago, thus fragmenting the chain!" Again, irrelevant, as that very argument concedes that separate species could arise from a common ancestor. If Nature could bring about some ancestor spawning two or more distinct species incapable of interbreeding with each other and yet producing viable progeny of their own, so too should Man be able to. No matter how one chooses to consider it Nature at some point was supposedly capable of genetically isolating progeny of a common ancestor.
It does appear, however, that many non-creationsts have accepted for fact that life supposedly arose from non-life (which has yet to be demonstrated) and that the variety of life on this planet is due to speciation and evolution occurred naturally (which also has yet to be demonstrated), and reject out of hand any argument to the contrary. It is one thing to have a theory, and another thing to accept the theory as accepted fact. Until and unless the theorized products and processes of nature can be reproduced, evolution and speciation remain theories at best.
GaDS