Great, so if it adapted it was from a kind. The transition was from kind to something evolved from the kind.
No.
Let me use an analogy.
I can look at different phone operating systems. Let's say I look at Apple's iOS, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows. Each of these operating systems is going to have to do similar things. They're all going to need to be able to deal with phone calls, text messages, blue tooth, wifi, etc. So there are going to be some similarities, just as there are similarities between sharks and dolphins.
But when we actually take a close look at HOW the different operating systems work, we understand that even though they may look outwardly similar, the actual way they work is different. That's why I can't take the bit of programming that runs Facebook on an iPhone and get it to work on my Android phone. The operating systems have developed their own unique ways of handling the tasks they need to perform, and what works on one system won't necessarily work on another. It's like how a shark's network of blood vessels won't work in a dolphin. The shark needs a blood supply to its gills, and a dolphin doesn't have any. Put the shark blood vessels in a dolphin and they'd be supplying blood to gills that aren't there, while the lungs that ARE there have no blood supply at all.
Now, the operating systems change over time, and they put out updates. But if the Android programming that handled how the wifi connection works suddenly started looking like the Microsoft version, I'd figure that the new code didn't develop from the previous Android code, but was stolen. This would be like a dolphin suddenly growing gills instead of lungs. It doesn't happen in nature, and if it happened in the operating systems, Microsoft would take Google to court over theft of intellectual property. And how would Microsoft know? Because the characteristics were there. The new Google code wasn't based on earlier versions of the same app. However, if Googles new code DOES have the same characteristics of their earlier code, then Microsoft knows that Google hasn't been using stolen data.
Likewise, we can look at the ways animals bodies work and see what evolutionary lines they have come from. Dolphins have bones in their flipers which are a very close match to the bones that humans have in their arms. Evolutionarily speaking, the reason for this is simple. There was a species of animal that lived before humans and dolphins, and it evolved this bone structure. Then it speciated, and evolved, some following the evolutionary line that would lead to modern dolphins, and others leading to modern Humans. Since both humans and dolphins evolved from this common ancestor, we would expect that many of the traits that it had remained. Changed, due to the need to adapt to different pressures, but the basic architecture is there for all to see.
And that is why we know where the different kinds of animals came from. (There are many other ways as well, so we can check. All the different ways to know where the animals came from all agree.)
You just read signs wrong. Kinds were created with similar traits. God created fish, and they may have eyes...so do we..whooopee do.
So why do dolphins have traits that are very BAD for living in water - like the inability to breathe water?
Before you starting imposing your same state past idea as a solution, you must first demonstrate that it actually happened. Then and only then could you tslk about slow evolving in the past.
I submit as evidence all of reality. In addition, I submit that we know for a fact that present state rules work, since we can observe them working. I also submit that the ratios of radioactive materials and decay products we see would be different. Since the only way to explain the ratio we see is by having same state past, then I declare that there was no DSP.
You have not shown it was the same. Back at ya.
Yes I have. And the opposition you are no doubt going to post to my argument does not change the fact that the ratios of radioactive material and decay product we see would be different.