Kent Hovind vs. a Molecular Biologist (The limitations of science)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 10, 2011, 23:04 (4673 days ago) @ xeno6696

We also know that there has not been such an expansion of new life since that point, and in fact we have lost over a third of all pre-existing phyla. 
> 
> I think that number is higher... if I remember right we have 35 now, and there were some 200 at the Cambrian. 
>-Which further supports my view.
 
> > We also know that mutations are negative.
> 
> No... they're split roughly into thirds. Harmful, Neutral, Positive. 2/3 of all mutations are not lethal. 
> -I did not say lethal, I said negative. The genetics of a mule are not lethal, i.e. a mule can survive independently, but they are negative in that it forms a non-breedable bloodline.(I guess you could say lethal to the species but not the individual. In which manner did you mean the word 'lethal'?) The article regarding negative mutations did not even insinuate that they would be lethal, only that they would/could interfere with other more beneficial functions, and thus be negative.-> > We also know that there is no proven case of speciation.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html speaks of several.
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-ru-... One under progress right now. 
> -Let's test this by your own definition of speciation. Could one of the test foxes and another member of the canine family breed and produce an offspring that could breed as well. If the answer is yes, then I argue that they are not truly a different species any more than I am a different species than Michelle Obama. Naturally, there would be strong stressors that might keep me and Michelle from breeding, social standing, pheremones, personal preference, etc. However, we are still compatible enough to mate and produce offspring.-
In the 4 samples cited on the talkorigins website, please note that the first two were a case of artificial intervention, which to me invalidates the experiment, and in the last two they were never actually tested to see if the 'species' could interbreed. -My Criteria for a provable case:-Must have occurred naturally without human intervention.(No ligers, mules, genetically altered rats, artificial insemination/fertilization of any kind as these will bypass natural mating inhibitors.)
Must produce offspring that are unable to breed with offspring from the other 'branch'.
Must produce offspring that are able to reproduce in order to propagate the species.
Must produce a sufficient population to support natural expansion and sustainability of the species.
Final proving of genetic incompatibility may be tested using artificial means in order to bypass natural mating inhibitors. (We can interfere only after the fact.)-This also brings up the question of, are the currently defined species actually species by definition?(Genetically incapable of interbreeding or of producing viable offspring)--
We got really off topic somewhere in all of this LOL Sorry