Those are not examples of evolution.
One of the things that would have to be shown to be proof for evolution is, somebody would have to show an evolution mutation that benefited a creature, and the next beneficial mutation change to one of its descendants that carried the first beneficial mutation change, and the next beneficial mutation to one of
its descendants that carried the first two beneficial mutation changes... and more would be better, because it is difficult determining from a selection of only 3, if the changes are, indeed, beneficial changes, since mutation changes can be exceedingly tiny.
Nobody has found this, and nobody will ever be able to find it, at least not until we develop a time machine to actually go back and examine countless creatures in the past. Why not? Because according to ETE, these changes are too far apart in history for us to live long enough to detect such changes, even in punctuated evolution. So, evolution will never be proven... at least not for a long time.
Of course, we need to start, now, recording all the natural mutation changes that we can get our hands on, just in case one of them turns out to be beneficial. This way we can watch all the descendants of all these creatures in the hopes that one of them will have a second beneficial mutation change. And remember. It has to be in an undisturbed natural nature so that scientists cannot be accused of manipulation.
Are you beginning to see how difficult it will be proving evolution, and why the evolution stuff that some people call proof, isn't really proof at all?
Why do you even keep replying? Is it to convince yourself that you are asking for proof and no one is giving it to you so you can tell yourself, yeah these guys don't have any evidence, evolution is truly a hoax. I can give you plenty of examples of beneficial mutations that are passed on through generations but then you will say the same things that you have been saying all the time, evolution fits better adaption (which is retarded) and mutations aren't random therefore evolution can't exist (which is not proven)
So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax.
Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial?
If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs?
Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet.
What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from?
Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment.
Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers?
When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right?
Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication.