And all I get back is, "Rockv12, what an idiot". And no answer or rebuttal to tell me how I'm wrong. Seems like everyone likes to call me an idiot, but offer no reason or rhyme to why I'm wrong. What Christians in the past didn't see differences in species?
Because you have demonstrated that you are not interested in learning about anything you want to attack, and that you think that because you claim you haven't been shown all that you have asked for, no one will notice that this is a lie. That is quite stupid, rockv. Just because you try to close your eyes and claim something you don’t like isn’t there, doesn’t mean that is true at all.
Christians have, and still claim that there are no species, that there are only "kinds" and these kinds magically sprung from the ground. They do not acknowledge that life has gone from simple forms to more complex forms. I do find it amusing that even creationists can’t agree. We have the AiG folks sure that their god did the “major structures” but want to accept natural selection. Young earthers want to claim that the earth is only 6000 or so years old. Old earth creationists want to go with a old earth since the evidence is overwhelming, but still want their god to have done “something”, anything from magically popping out animals or just giving a “soul” to the apes that where already here. You can see the variety here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
Theists can’t get their stories straight *again*. So much for thinking any of you have any “truth”.
Now, to show you *again* that natural selection is indeed what underpins evolutionary theory, here we go: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml
Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
And it goes into a very nice example in the link. This is evolution 101, rockv. So you need to read it.
Here’s a slightly more difficult version: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
and this is the summary of that page:
Darwin's theory of evolution fundamentally changed the direction of future scientific thought, though it was built on a growing body of thought that began to question prior ideas about the natural world.
The core of Darwin's theory is natural selection, a process that occurs over successive generations and is defined as the differential reproduction of genotypes.
Natural selection requires heritable variation in a given trait, and differential survival and reproduction associated with possession of that trait.
Examples of natural selection are well-documented, both by observation and through the fossil record.
Selection acts on the frequency of traits, and can take the form of stabilizing, directional, or diversifying selection.
You have been repeatedly told this, that natural selection is one of the prime agents in evolutionary theory, the theory that biological entities can diversify , e.g. “change” because of how the environment they exist in selects for certain attributes. These attributes can come from mutations. The best adapted entities pass along those beneficial traits to their offspring and this can result in two differing populations that can take advantage of differing environments. If the difference is enough, they can be so different that they can no longer interbreed.
Now, many creationists have done their best to try to change the definition of evolutionary theory so they can lie and claim it doesn’t work, by trying to split off natural selection from the term. They do this because they know that natural selection has become too obvious for even them to ignore. Even the liars at AiG know it is observable. They try so pitifully to claim that there wasn’t enough “time” for this to have lead to the changes we see today and they claim that they know there wasn’t enough time because the bible said so. However, they cannot provide any evidence that there was only 6000 years for it to occur. They ignore the problems with geology, with radioactive decay, etc. They claim that “We mentioned earlier that natural selection tends to delete information from the population.” They of course don’t show any evidence this is the case. Unfortunately for them, actual biologists can show that they are liars. We can see new abilities come up in populations by natural selection. Feathers are one main example, a change in scales so we have feathers which are insulating, which may have been appealing as displays, etc; so is the return of land mammals back to the sea, no information lost there and indeed no new information needed as the creationists at AiG would claim, just repurposing of the information already there. The mistakes that AiG and other creationists make is from their willful ignorance. If you don’t know what you are attacking, then you make mistakes and reality takes its toll on your believability.