Your ‘talkorigins’ examples of observed modern evolution only show variation within a kind…the mice are still mice and the cichlids are still cichlids
Then let us observe and not be afraid, garbonzo.
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
and the other results were from forced lab-play with the organisms, one resulting in a sterile hybrid. Again, that’s Intelligent Design – a creator was necessary, in this case lab technicians.
And their techniques were not in any way magical, such as an omnipotent Creator has been alleged to employ. They were simple selection and recombination. Nothing special. But surely your insistence on a form of Special Creation (see below, and the OP) implies the necessity of magical, omnipresent regulation. How do you explain this contrast? Are the scientists perhaps in league with the Devil?
Again i’ll repeat, epigenetics simply give an example of how a parent’s actions (diet, lifestyle, environment) can affect their children genetically. Besides the sensationalist title, I didn’t say dogmatically that is how sin affected mankind (but it’s food for thought).
"Epigentics [sic] prove original sin!"
Does that ring a bell? How about this?
Since it’s true for matters of health, who are you to say that the stresses brought on by our first parents’ turning their backs on their Creator didn’t unalterably affect them to the bone (and DNA)? As our Creator, Jehovah (along with His firstborn Son) made not only a crowning achievement that he proclaimed as “GOOD” – (hence where we get the idea of “perfect” or ‘suited to it’s purpose’), he is also responsible for all they myriad chemical processes that keep us alive. Given the fact that He made us “in the image of God” and therefore elevated from animal creation in ways of character and mental, spiritual abilities, who are we to say that there wasn’t to be a synergistic benefit from a one-on-one relationship with Jehovah as true ‘children of God’? Adam “walked with God during the breezy part of the day” – any needs or concerns would be openly discussed. God’s Holy Spirit would be made available to man as well. The point being that Man was made with the idea of them being part of Jehovah’s universal family and given respect by even angels as fellow worshipers of the True God. I’d go so far as to say that we were built with special sensitivities regarding a connection with our Creator. How could mankind remain unscathed by a divorce of such magnitude?
How indeed?
The biblical record says that those living close to Adam lived many 100’s of years with each generation living about 200 years less than the prior until it leveled out at what we see now. When Adam and Even pulled away from their Creator, it was akin to pulling the plug on a fan – it wouldn’t stop immediately but slowly wind down. Adam living to over 900 years still testifies to the robust way we were originally designed and created.
I think this argument precludes any reasonable person from regarding SIN as a trivial matter.
Your devotion to a stance you now try to recuse yourself from is unmistakeable. You are not suggesting such a thing, you are insisting upon it.
As for “talking around the evidence”, who is kidding who?
Well, you are not kidding me, that's for sure.
On the one hand you admit the extreme improbability of life occurring by chance and yet you absolve yourselves with the blanket excuse: “with billions of years anything can happen”.
And this confuses you? Life is extremely improbable - and has had a long, long time in which to work, leaving aside the fact that one scientist produced 20 amino acids just by throwing elements in a hot jar for two weeks. You perceive no correlation between a thing being unlikely and taking a long time to come about? I'm sorry, but your oblique attack on the mathematics you have yet to present comes to nothing.
To illustrate; to have all the necessary items in place for a single-celled organism to suddenly pop into existence is beyond the pale of common sense.
And no one has taken up such a position. You say you read all my links with more than a passing interest, yet you failed to notice the Miller-Urey experiment. Amino acids were apparently completely integral to the early Earth, for one thing, and easily 'created'.
In fact, if you had shuffled every hour since the beginning of the universe, you would still not come anywhere close to the amount of times necessary. But i thought “billions of years” made anything happen?
A good point! Perhaps Miller was in league with the Devil? Or perhaps the conditions of the early Earth favoured the production of amino acids and other important organics. Seems like all the ingredients were there.
I would think (to the extent my simple layman’s brain will allow me) that the items needed for life to begin would amount to more than 52 with the obvious requisite to be in a particular order. I don’t think a simple recipe for organic soup (a term you guys seem to love) will suffice, simply dumping them together and adding a spark. And yet, in your controlled labs you tease yourselves with results coming from specific conditions in carefully controlled environments. Sure, i can take the deck of cards and put them in any order i wish…but i’m afraid that’s cheating.
Interestingly, misrepresenting the conditions of an experiment is a form of mathematical cheating. A self-replicating identity such as a simple membrane is relatively easy to come by. After that, one only needs simple self-replicating RNA and the eventual production of DNA seems a simple enough transition, if marked. Mind you, I'm only a humble quantitative geneticist.