The inability to reproduce is not evidence of evolution. For ring species to be an example of evolution, the salamander etc., must become something other than what it was, and the salamanders remained salamanders.
I'm not sure you understand what Evolution is and how it works. Literally, a change in the frequency of alleles in a population is evolution. That's all it needs to be able to make changes over time. We've proven that it's possible with Dogs in as little as 15,000 years... -_-
Do you really not understand that for evolution to be true at some point an A must become a B?
Given time and barring extinction/reunification, A will become B and we have evidence of that in the genome of every creature alive today (as well as some that have been extinct for hundreds of thousands of years even...). We can trace the genetic evolution through comparative genomics and in fact, this is how we know how related any two humans are through paternity testing and forensic DNA - it's the exact same process by which we can determine how related any two living organisms are. All this aside, biologists were classifying life within clades with a high degree of fidelity and very little error in relationships when we finally got the technology to verify everything with genetics.
Poor analogy. The ability to gather food easier may result in the survival of the species, but it will not result in a change of species.
Why not? If two giraffes are struggling to find enough food to survive, wouldn't the giraffe with the longer neck be able to access more food than a giraffe with a shorter neck? Voila! Selection Advantage! Point refuted. If not, please explain why.
Saying it is true doesn not make it true. The explanation must include HOW it is genetically possible, and the hardest thing you need to explain is why a l and animal surviving well on land would need to become something other than what it was. That refutes natural selection.
Why would I need to explain why what happened actually happened? I think you're asking the wrong question. The evidence shows this is what happened, so a proper question might be to ask why it happened that way, or why the evidence shows this if you seem to think it didn't happen that way. Incredulous stares and non-acceptance aren't a refutation of the evidence in any way, I'm afraid.
You didn't give any evidence for only 1 reason, you have none. My evidence is the laws of genetics. Parents with no gene for fins, can't have a kid with fins. Can you falsify that?
Even if I hadn't already, I don't need to falsify that because it's already a failed hypothesis. The genes for fins is literally a variation of the genes for any tetrapod - there's a thousand examples of intermediary hands/fins/wings in the mammalian clade alone that demonstrates this fact already. Bats, Sea lions, Whales, Sugar gliders, Beavers, Deer, Cats, Apes, Otters, Manatees - All of them have variations of the exact same genes that build arms and legs! Everything from slightly webbed fingers through to fully fleshed out fins, wings, walking sticks, paddles, etc. over the exact same skeletal structure us apes have in our arms (yep, find me one bone we have that the other great apes don't have, or vice-versa). Most of the bones in our arms have an analog in the flipper of a whale or the wing of a bat and the structure is homologous. If we were individually and uniquely created, then why wouldn't we all have structures that are uniquely created and not sharing analogues with all the other life forms?
Your effort to not accept the evidence is perplexing. Nobody who thinks rationally expects to see such a profound change in any species in our lifetime, because such a thing to happen so quick is next to impossible. Major morphological changes take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. Since yours was a non-starter, I have a counter-challenge for you. We're all descended from the same mammal-like synapsid of which there are ***ZERO*** examples of mammals at all in the geological column prior. All you have to do to falsify my claim is to find one single mammal in the geological column before my mammal-like synapsid... Excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting on that though.
