Most evolutionists hinge on some belief about shared ancestry. This DOES NOT prove evolution. It's backwards. There is NO evidence for a working, functional evolution. And, in fact, all of the "evidence" for common ancestry can be attributed to common Design elements. If you can't solve the problem going forward, to where it actually becomes useful, and real, then you believe in a new age fairy tale, taken all together. A false religion of so-called science that is a DILLUSION. Fate is not without a sense of irony, I suppose. The Bible has always made the same claim about what it is, and where it comes from, and still stands firm on testable, repeatable, observable scientific phenomena.
Comments (76)
sorted by:
Heredity is the physical process of evolution, an offspring's genes created from a mixing of the DNA of both parents. Darwin in particular focused on natural selection via adaptation, which is likely the form of evolution most responsible for species differentiation. Natural selection is one type of evolution, as is artificial selection (breeding of animals).
Yes, natural selection and adaptation are all observable, natural processes. Artificial selection too, is observable and has been known by mankind for thousands of years. Species differentation is not species derivation however - far from it. The Lie, and what Darwin is most known for, is what you aren't addressing with your copy pasta reply.
Copy pasta? I wrote all that myself. :(
What lie? That species descended from other species based on adaptations to their environment? That is where the evidence points. The only possible issue there is with species classification, there is not a clear dividing line between species like we would want. But if rather than saying "species" you use "group of animals" then I don't know what part of evolution you would argue about?
Heredity yes. Differentiation of species yes. Adaptation of species yes. The environment (and especially fluctuations in climate) is the major driver of adaptation or extinction. This is yes.
"Evolution" as you describe it, explains changes within the species. Yes, species evolve.
"That species descend from other species" NO
There is zero evidence suggesting a genetic mutation (the only biological mechanism by which the theory could work) caused self awareness, or at the very least is responsible for the overwhelming diversity of millions of life forms on earth. It's as silly as believing the fossil fuel myth.
Agenda driven propaganda buddy
Species could descend/change from other species even without genetic mutation (gaining a gene variant that neither parent has). That would be through large scale movement of a subpopulation of a species to a differing environment, where over time they adapt enough differing traits that they no longer fully resemble their "original" species (the animals that stayed in the previous environment and did not leave). The more generations that pass, the less they will resemble the species they "branched" off from. Eventually they would be genetically different enough to be considered a different species. This would resemble the branching of the tree of life charts, and fit the "last common ancestor" paradigm. It can potentially explain all species origination through the natural selection model.
All the change we observe is horizontal. There is nothing in biology that shows vertical change is possible. Horizontal can be thought of as the range between a wolf and a poodle, and vertical as a wolf to cougar. So there is overlapping variability.