Caught on tape by an undercover CIA agent were Keith Knapp's words:
BS> bs> You mean a species has been observed to evolve into another,
BS> bs> separate species in a lab?
BS> FR> Indeed it has -- and continues to be observed.
BS>    My mistake on that for not being more clear as to my meaning.  I
BS> meant a new species of a different, or new, genus, family or order from
BS> the that of the original genus, family or order.  Has this been
BS> observed?
 KK> You'll want to be careful not to change your meaning in mid-argument.
    I didn't change it, but I realized that what I was saying was not
 exactly what I was thinking, and wanted to clarify it.  When I was
 challenging changes in a species, I was thinking about one evolving
 into a completely different species, such as a cat to a dog.  What I
 was actually saying could technically be argued as just getting a new
 breed of the same species, as in a new type of Siamese cat.  Well of
 course that has been observed, and to argue otherwise, or just to be
 perceived as arguing otherwise, would certainly be foolish.  So, I'm
 clarifying the meaning my challenge, not changing it.
 KK> The answer to your original argument is yes; in fact, you can
 KK> create a new species yourself.
    Of course, but as I just pointed out, what I meant to argue from the
 beginning was my second question.
 KK> Your second question is really, has a new genus, family, or order
 KK> been observed in the lab or in the wild?  AFAIK, no.
    And that's what I challenge anyone to present evidence of.  Fried
 Rice told Andy he had plenty of evidence, and has threatened to post it
 for over a year now, but has not yet done so, to my knowledge.
... Faigh an gleas.
--- PPoint 2.06
---------------