I'm not asking for a "better" explanation. I'm asking you to explain it in order to demonstrate that you understand the concept. Copying and pasting a website - one that doesn't even explain how the process occurs - doesn't demonstrate that you have any personal understanding or knowledge of the subject.
I'm trying to ascertain how much you actually know. I've been very clear about that.
What makes you assume that I don’t read what I quote or that I can’t comprehend what I read? Are you suggesting that because I don’t accept what you accept as truth that I must be mentally deficient ? Thank you.
Okay, thank you. That's not a bad explanation.
I’m glad it met with your approval. So little does.
The question is: what is it that caused the variation in colour among the moths? If natural selection was simply acting selectively on what was present, what caused the variation for it to select from?
Didn’t we already ascertain that natural selection drives adaptation. The genes that selected for the darker coloring became dominant in the population because the lighter colored ones did not survive as well as the ones better camouflaged. The fact that the moths returned to their original color never seems to be mentioned though. So adaptation can take a creature to a new appearance because of a changed environment, and back again. How is that evolving?
You are correct. That conclusion is not reached by observing adaptive changes alone - it is reached by observing changes in populations, speciation, understanding genetics, genetic lineage and observing the fossil record.
All of which was open to science’s own interpretation of how they believe it all happened. It’s when you venture deeper into the theory and why evolutionists shy away from all mention of abiogenesis, as if it has nothing to do with evolution. But the fact is, abiogenesis is the first step in the “process”......if you have no firmly established first step, then how does the journey continue? If life is found to be created, (because it can't be a random accident) then the whole theory ends up in the trash.
The pre-conceived ideas relating to all things in nature, influence their conclusions. Everything had to fit into that evolutionary model.....regardless of how absurd it sounded, science had a way of making it sound reasonable....but only to the indoctrinated.
If you want to believe their conclusions, go right ahead.....they do not influence my thinking on the matter at all.
So how much has to change before an organism becomes no longer "true to its kind"? For example, a chihuahua and a great dane are signifciantly different, yet you would consider them the same "kind", correct? So where is the line?
Not a good analogy because no chihuahua or Great Dane would ever have been produced by nature. No artificially produced animal would have been selected for in the natural world because all were beautifully designed in the first place with instincts to reproduce replicas of themselves, which they still do.
Even genetically close relatives in the wild do not mate with any other than their own species. Humans can artificially cross them, but the offspring are invariably sterile. Why do you suppose that genetic roadblock exists?
Evolution can never produce a taxa other than what produced it. What it does is produce variations within the taxa. Finiches produce finches, but they produce varieties of finches. Finches themselves are a variety of birds which were produced by earlier birds. Birds are a variety of vertebrates which were produces by earlier vertebrates. Vertebrates area variety of eukaryote that were produces by earlier eukaryotes.
Now this is where I find the second greatest leap of faith in the whole theory. These classifications in diagrammatic form lead one to believe that all in these classifications must be related, just because of the way they are classified and presented
I have already addressed this. It is totally misleading IMO.
It is the assumption that because creatures share a “similarity” that it must come from a common ancestor. The strange thing is, no one actually knows who these phantom ancestors are....they exist only in science’s imagination.....and on their diagrams. This is one of the “might have’s” that turn into a “must have”. I don’t buy something that unsubstantiated. It’s a suggestion masquerading as fact.
Tiktaalik is a classic example of assuming that this fish was somehow a transitional form between land and sea creatures....but doesn’t evolution teach that whales descended from land dwelling animals whereas tiktaalik is a fish wanting to be a land dweller. Can evolution not make up its mind?
In conclusion, nothing produces anything "outside of" its taxa. What they do is produce variations WITHIN their taxa.
What taxa do the original single celled originators of life fall into?
If nothing falls outside of its taxa, then how did the various taxa come about? Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. How far can you stretch imagination when all you really have are suggestions and assumptions as your foundation?
So you admit you have a religious bias, then.
Now that made me laugh out loud...
I have as much religious bias as you have non religious bias based on your own indoctrination. We all believe what we want to believe...whether its truth or not is in the eye of the beholder.
I have evaluated this question very carefully and the more I research what science actually claims against what real evidence they produce to support them, I am left with no other choice than to go where my own logic tells me is the truth. If your logic dictates the opposite to you, then that is where you should be.
Pregnancy and childbirth.
I can’t believe you said that. The brilliantly designed and diverse reproductive systems of all creatures on this planet do not in any way resemble what you are suggesting. SMH
I literally JUST explained this, Deeje. They didn't. They produced VARIATIONS of what they were. The progenitors of modern animals were eukaryotes, which produced eukaryotes. You are a eukaryote.
There it is again....the classifications that supposedly link creatures that are unrelated to an imaginary chain of evolution. There is no chain if all the links are missing.
The adaptations are varieties of what these creatures “are”....not necessarily what they “were”. The examples put forward by Darwin were not formerly finches or tortoises or iguanas....they were simply adapted varieties of what already existed. They never became something else and never would. Science assumes that similar looking creatures that lived at different time periods “must have” evolved from one another....but there is no solid proof that they ever did.
No, because they EVOLVED INTO bacteria from the last universal common ancestor and will not produce outside of that taxa, as I have explained. Modern bacteria are not the same thing as the first unicallular organisms or self-replicating proteins.
Ah...and there is the phantom “universal common ancestor”....please produce these ancestors so that we can see that they are not figments of science’s imagination. Right now, all I see are marks on a graph that suggest that they might have existed. I have never seen real evidence that there ever were any.
Please tell us how simple these unicellular organisms were so that they could just pop up out of nowhere for no apparent reason, and eventually become a planet full of extraordinarily diverse living things?
You realize that this process occurs every time a living thing reproduces, right? We observe full-sized organisms growing from single cells every day.
Rubbish! That is no comparison at all to what science is suggesting took place in the ‘primordial soup’ (which apparently needed a recipe but had no chef.) You’re talking about a gestation period of billions of years! Seriously.
I don't care what you believe or claim to know about God. It's irrelevant.
I have the same feelings about evolution......an imaginary process based on limited natural processes that have been taken to wild extremes.
I have demonstrated all my reasoning here whilst my opposers have done nothing but whine about my statements which were lifted off your own websites. I don’t think you guys can read without your science lenses distorting everything....but you will say the same about the lens I am looking through.
You can believe whatever you wish.....and I will do the same.
We shall all find out one day if the Creator exists, and it will not be a good day for the majority according to scripture.
We are just rehashing......I rest my case.
