Thats my point. Diversity of species within the kind. There are many species of dogs, but guess what, they are all dogs.
First of all: The domestic dog is a sub species to Gray wolf together with i.e. Dingo and 37 other subspecies. So there is not "many species of dogs". There is different breeds of dogs but there is only one species (the one being canis lupus familiaris). Wikipedia would help you out alot I think.
I could easily maintain that God created every animal and insect to be able to produce different varieties of its own kind. You cannot prove this to be untrue. So my point is, at least keep the playing field at 50/50 instead of passing off one view as true, when it is absolutely not. Then once you do that, we can weigh the pros and cons of both views, using our reason and logic.
True. I cannot prove that God didn't do it. But there is no evidence supporting that position as oposed to the theory of evolution. I keep to evidence, rationality and facts, thank you very much.
See, here is the problem. You are making it seem as if DNA is "just a bunch of amino acids." But this is an understatment. Amino acids come in 80 different types, but only 20 are found in living organisms, so you would have to literally isolate the correct ones from the other ones not needed. They have to be linked together in the right sequence in order to produce protein molecules. This wouldnt be hard to do if you were implying you INTELLIGENCE to all this and started selecting them one at a time. But without intelligence, this was all unguided without any help whatsoever. Then you have to consider the left-handed amino acids and right handed, and only the left handed ones work with us. It takes one hundred amino acids to make one protein molecule. And this is just the first step!!! And the structure and construction of DNA is even more complicated than this.
Here you go:
"Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life",
can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] Other
equally fundamental biochemicals, such as nucleotides and saccharides can arise in similar ways. In all living things, these biochemicals are organized into more complex molecules, including macromolecules, such as proteins, polysaccharides, and nucleic acids. These three molecules are essential for all life functions and make up all living organisms.
The construction of these macromolecules is mediated by nucleic acids and enzymes, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed largely by proteins. Which of these various classes of organic molecules first arose, and how they formed the first life, is a major topic in the discipline of abiogenesis." - wiki on abiogenesis
You can see that it is definitley a possibility even though it is yet to be proven.
So the main purpose for a birds wings are for flying, right? So, how did birds evovle wings?? If wings are for the purpose of flying, how did evolution know it was going to need wings to fly?? And spare me the "thats not how it worked" stuff, because that is how it worked. Birds evovled wings. Wings are for flying. That is its purpose. How did evolution know??
There is no complete theory on this subject yet, though there are a few interesting hypothesies. You could just google "evolution of wings" and find a reasonable amount on the subject.
Sooooo, where is all of this evidence??? Please tell me. What is the best piece of evidence that we have for evolution?? I cant wait to see this.
The wiki article "Evidence of common descent" is among the longer ones I've seen. It lists:
1.
Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.1.1 Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
1.1.2 DNA sequencing
1.1.3 Endogenous retroviruses
1.1.4 Proteins
1.1.5 Pseudogenes
1.1.6 Other mechanisms
1.2 Specific examples
1.2.1 Feline endogenous retroviruses
1.2.2 Chromosome 2 in humans
1.2.3 Cytochrome c
1.2.4 Human endogenous retroviruses
1.2.5 Recent African origin of modern humans
2
Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples
2.6.1 Hind structures in whales
2.6.2 Insect mouthparts
2.6.3 Other arthropod appendages
2.6.4 Pelvic structure of dinosaurs
2.6.5 Pentadactyl limb
2.6.6 Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes
2.6.7 Route of the vas deferens
3
Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.1.1 Extent of the fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples
3.3.1 Evolution of the horse
4
Evidence from geographical distribution
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.2.1 Types of species found on islands
4.2.2 Endemism
4.2.3 Adaptive radiations
4.3 Ring Species
4.4 Specific examples
4.4.1 Distribution of Glossopteris
4.4.2 Distribution of marsupials
4.4.3 Migration, isolation, and distribution of the Camel
5
Evidence from observed natural selection
5.1 Specific examples of natural selection in the lab and in the field
5.1.1 Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
5.1.2 E. coli long-term evolution experiment
5.1.3 Humans
5.1.4 Lactose intolerance in humans
5.1.5 Nylon-eating bacteria
5.1.6 PCB tolerance
5.1.7 Peppered moth
5.1.8 Radiotrophic fungus
5.1.9 Urban wildlife
6
Evidence from observed speciation
6.1 Specific examples
6.1.1 Blackcap
6.1.2 Drosophila melanogaster
6.1.3 Hawthorn fly
6.1.4 London Underground mosquito
6.1.5 Madeira House Mouse
6.1.6 Mollies
6.1.7 Thale cress
6.2 Interspecies fertility or hybridization
6.2.1 Polar bear
6.2.2 Raphanobrassica
6.2.3 Salsify
6.2.4 Welsh groundsel
6.2.5 York groundsel
7
Evidence from artificial selection
8
Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration
8.1 Specific examples
8.1.1 Avida simulation
Number 6 should especially interest you.
Check it out. Sorry that I can't link you to it. I'm new here and need 15 posts before I can do that X/
I agree. If a mother rabbit produces two offspring, one that can hop 70 mph, and the other 10mph, the one that can hop 70mph is better suited for survival, because it can hop away faster from predators. So if it passes along the "fast hopping" gene, it will produce a ton of fast hopping rabbits, and thus, we have a rabbit that can hop 70mph. Got it. That part is simple. But that is more along the lines of natural selection. What I am talking about is the actual evovling of the animal. The whole "the whale used to be a land dwelling animal" crap. That never happened. That is more than natural selection, that is more like a man turning in to a werewolf.
It's the exact same process. There is no difference between macro- and microevolution. The fact that some rabbits could hop faster was due to something. Longer legs, more muscle mass, more effective disposal of energy or whatever. So the genes, in control of these attributes where the ones carried on. Then the long legged rabbit gets offspring where one of them has the same size as himself and one has just a little longer. And so it goes until you have the first rabbit with "normal" legs and it's (far distant) offspring with enormously long legs. Then a change in enviorment makes long ears bad, thus forcing the long legged rabbit to develop short ears, etc. etc. etc.
In the end (after millions of years) you have something that is just as different as we are from the common ancestor that we share with elephants. The evolution doesn't magically stop when a distant offspring has changed "to much", it keeps going until it goes exstinct.
No, either we are here by God, or some kind of naturalistic reason. Any naturalistic explanation would fall other "naturalistic reason". So that still only leaves two options.
What? That's just outright wrong. Ruling out one naturalistic explanation doesn't imply God. It was earlier believed that the different seasons of the year was due to how close the earth was to the sun. This naturalistic explanation was disproven. That didn't mean God makes the season happen. We soon found what did, namely the tilt of the Earths axis. Surprise, another naturalistic explanation.
So if evolution is disproven, there might very well be another, completley natural explanation.
ID is more plausible. If you are walking through a junkyard and you see a fully functional Boeing 747, is it more logical to conclude that a whirling tornado whirled its way in to the junkyard and accidentally assembled it, or, to conclude that man, using its intelligent mind, assembled it. DNA is more complex than what is in question. There is evidence for ID, we know ID when we see it, but people deny ID if it has religous implications, but any other time it is widely accepted. It blows my mind.
Just once, there would be interesting to see an accurate analogy.