Not really, I provided a source for the probability argument. An atheist source to boot.

Anyways, my fundamental points against evolution are the likelyhood of all happening by chance, and the constraints in nature (which I've mentioned: inbreeding, incompatibility between species).

If you give me sources to see what the arguments for those points are, I'll be glad to read it.

A source which again, didn't support your claim whose intention was to tear down mine.

You are still attacking my claim, and not substantiating your own.

Do you have any evidence for Creation or Intelligent design?

Do you have any articles regarding the issue of inbreeding, or the incompatibility between species? You brought up the mule but that is just one special case. Do you have a source of a person explaining the scenario for evolution which considers this constraint in the speciation process? What about the generation of genes through inbreeding? It's hard to accept a theory when there are so many open questions, they are gaping.

I do have evidence for Creation or Intelligent design.

For example, the population of the american continent is believed to have happened only a few thousand years ago (15k I heard on the nature show). It makes sense in my frame of mind that the migration is so recent because, in my view, humans are a recent species. With evolution, an ocean should not be that big a divider, given that species have pretty much covered the earth since a long time.

Please don't demolish this argument I am just speaking my mind. Otherwise I will just stop posting.

Also, it seems that over time species lose genetic information due to degradation of genes over time, we see it with inbreeding, in general over generations mutation errors grow with occurence and it just seems that given enough time genetic defects end up taking precedence over genetic improvements by random mutations.

Animal cross-breeds: (Mule excluded)

http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/

After reviewing your original introduction of inbreeding, I have to admit, it isn't at all relevant to evolution. So I won't address it further.

I don't understand your point about oceans. Columbus found it, then it was colonized. What does that have to do with evolution?

Species do not lose genetic information over time. Sheer nonsense. Inbreeding doesn't degrade the DNA either, you don't inbreed until you become a new species. You'll experience rare conditions/mutations, nothing more.

This still isn't providing any evidence for Intelligent Design or Creation. You're still addressing evolution so far as I can tell.

I'm addressing long age and short age, which is in favor or one and disfavor of another. I'm providing evidence for ID and shedding doubt on evolution, hitting two birds with one stone.

@Oceans. Think about it and maybe I'll expand. If animals made it to the other side, why did it take humans so long?

Species lose genetic information if there is a genetic copying error, which is the source of defects. As simple as mistypin a word in a retranscription of a document. Am I wrong on that too? This debate is always full of surprises.

@Hybrids. Am I to take from this that there are 10 of many or 10 of few possible or known hybrids? I'd need much more info than that, like a scientific study of the constraints of breeding between species, which to my knowledge far outweigh the few cases of cross-species hybrids.

The problem is you aren't providing any evidence for ID, nor producing doubt on evolution. Inbreeding has nothing to do with evolution.

You do realize people were in North America prior to Columbus discovering it, right? Furthmore, Alaska was once attached to Russia. Pangea and all that jazz.

The DNA does not change. Mutations occur in certain aspects of the "junk" DNA, but the defining chromosomes are not altered.

You asked for examples of hybrid creatures, I provided them. 11 such examples. What more do you need? The constraints, as I've already addressed are concerning the genus, if the DNA is too different, no crossbreed can be formed. That's why species in the same genus can crossbreed.

Edit: Still don't understand what you think crossbreeding or migration has to do with ID or Creation.

Yeah, I said 15k years ago didn't I? I was talking about the berinjians (passing across the bering straight).

It's not a landmass that connected Alaska to Russia that allowed for the human migration, but the ice age's ice bridge. We know that from geology.

What is "junk" DNA and what is the genesis of genetic diseases if mutations only affect junk DNA?

@hybrids. 11 is enough, if it leads us to rules like "the genus is the limit for crossbreading", then it's good. It then begs the question, how does evolution allow for that if for example a bird cannot cross-breed with a wolf. Then how did we get the whole animal kingdom with those breeding constraints?

It has to do with ID and/or creation in that creation does not require a transition between species in order to be true. Contrarily to naturalistic theories, ID and Creation have much less issues other than you need to have faith to believe it because we have no measures of God or creation. All we have are traces of certain biblical events, but we have not seen God or the time of creation.

That still doesn't make a point for anything - Humans in NA.

There isn't a need to go into what "junk" DNA is, DNA does not change in that no mutation from inbreeding would lead to a new strand or being.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with crossbreeding, I've said this twice now. Evolution is also not a cause, it is an effect.

It's a spontaneous event that leads to evolution as per: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345247/description/E_coli_caught_in_the_act_of_evolving

As far as how all species on Earth came to be, read about phylogeny:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/458573/phylogeny

Again, you've cited nothing. Just more suppositions and opinions. Surprised you haven't resorted to "you need to have faith", oh wait, you did use that line. Haha. Surely you must realize how ridiculous your argument is?

I'm personally not sure if you hear yourself sound insulting, but you don't. I said it takes faith to believe in evolution, tbh. I also said that certain points on God require faith but much less than naturalistic explanations for the world, which honestly I admire your tremendous faith for.

Evolutionary theory of the origins of species is constrained by things like crossbreeding, which have severe restrictions on what can breed with what.

I know what evolution is, it's an effect of random mutations. I know that.

Anyways, it's new year, so happy new year to you. I wish you to be much less judgemental for the new year *heart*

That is so far from what evolution is it isn't even funny. Read up on evolution before making such ridicilous claims about it. It's like me saying christianity is just a bunch of angels flying around all the time.