We use the word "evolution" in different ways. For example, the Model T Ford evolved over many years into the variety of Ford vehicles that we have today. This, however, is not what is meant by evolution theory evolution (ETE). ETE does not match the evolution of Ford cars except in the simple way that both of them are change. The rest of ETE doesn't match what happened in Ford car evolution.
This is the same with nature, life, and the world around us. Certainly there is change. So, in that simple sense there is evolution, just like in Ford cars. The thing that has not been found in changes in the world around is a change from one species to another in nature. Yet that is exactly what is required for ETE to exist... along with a bunch of other changes.
Adaptation is not necessarily a learned trait. In fact, cause and effect highly suggests that it is built in rather than learned, and that the whole process of teaching and learning is the effect of causes. Teaching and learning follows complex laws of physics. We think they are simple because we don't understand much of the complexity. It just happens. But cause and effect dictates how it happens, and the ways the changes happen through learning. Training is set in place by cause and effect.
What does such training have to do with evolution? It is change... semantics. But it is not the kind of change talked about in ETE.
ETE is a hoax, i.e., evolution is a hoax.
I don’t understand what it is you need to find?
You want to find 1-10 specimens of a given kind, for every year, spanning a million years – 100 million years in the future. It is not going to happened, they are not available anymore, they are gone, dust.
Those specimens we have are at best 1000 of years apart, at worse millions. Lots happen in these timeframes. You are never going to find, offspring after offspring spanning 1000 of years, in order to see a finger turn into flipper, or reverse or something like that. Does not mean you can’t find two specimens 100.000 - 500.000 years apart, with some sort of evolution.
As I said earlier, prove to me that the average height of humans have increased 10-20cm in the span of 200 years. But do it in 100 million years’ time. You can’t. But it did happen. They are going to have a likewise discussion by then, like us, on just this subject.
Evolution is observable on the daily basic, on trillions of examples, including humans.
In 25k years they are going to argue about whether the Giza pyramids even existed.
It isn't what
I need to find. It is what
you need to show me.
For example. You say, above, "It is not going to happened, they are not available anymore, they are gone, dust." Let's examine that statement from the pile of dust standpoint. You have a pile of dust, say, rust dust. Then you say, this pile of rust dust used to be a Mercedes Benz. But how do you know? It might have been a Chev or a Ford or a simple I-beam, or anyone of dozens of things.
With regard to evolution, there has to be a way to show that the pile of dust was evolution and not adaptation. Of course you can't show this by looking at things that have turned to dust. That's the whole point. find something that you can use to factually show evolution. Since things of the past won't show it - as you said - why do people keep on using fossils of the past to suggest that evolution is happening, when the past suggests adaptation way better... or nothing at all?
Another example. In this thread the post at -
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.43890150 - Moloch shows this picture:
The picture shows a bunch of similarities between creatures in their development. What the picture doesn't show is the DNA differences. The DNA differences are always there. That's why the creatures turn into completely different types and species. It doesn't have anything to do with proving evolution. In other words, if evolution exists, the picture doesn't prove it one way or another. So, why use it? Get to the point and show the proof for evolution.
All the things you talk about in your post aren't proof of evolution. The whole thing shows adaptation, simple change, and intelligent design way better than it shows evolution, evolution which can't even be found
for-a-fact.One of the important things that will need to be found to prove evolution is, two living creatures that are almost exactly the same, one of which has a mutation within it, to make it slightly better than the other one, and better than it was before. The mutation has to be in the DNA. It has to be very tiny - microscopic - because the odds are against big mutations, or multiple mutations, happening at once are too great.
This is the thing scientists have been looking for, for decades. They haven't found it. They might not recognize it if it stared them in the face. And proving that the mutation would be a beneficial one rather than a detrimental one, would be extremely difficult, because it probably wouldn't change the creature's life in any recognizable way.
The world is full of plants and animals. By now somebody should have found something that they can prove is evolution in process. Since they haven't, how in the world do we know for-a-fact that evolution even exists, since everything they have found so far fits adaptation and intelligent design better?
Evolution is a hoax. Evolution is a bunch of people making up a science fiction story about some things that they see in nature, but can't prove that their story is true.
