What a mess your post was, try to learn to use the quote function properly.
Your ignorance comes from the FACT you can't prove anything in the TOE.
You've repeatedly demonstrated a failure to look at evidence, if you won't look at it or comment when it's presented to you why do you think anyone would bother, or care about whether you accept it or not. My only reason for responding to you is to highlight why your assertions are wrong for the benefit of any readers. Not that I can see anyone agreeing with you.
Talk is cheap. Tell me something specific I don know about evolution.
Already did, yet you just repeat your nonsense like some sort of broken robot.
Some do, most don't. This is not about who accepts it, it about the evidence to support it.
"Most don't"? Can you demonstrate this claim? I just posted creationist sources showing that they do accept natural selection. It's such a simple concept and common phenomena only an idiot could deny it occurs.
You mentioned bears before, how do you explain why polar bears are white and grizzly bears brown without natural selection?
You don't even understand. your own rhetoric. Even if your statements is true, and death of a species is not evidence of it resulting in a new species. while it might contribute to the the species not becoming extinct, it will not contribute to a new species coming into existence. The rabbits with the stronger legs, and that is not natural selection, those rabbits will continue producing rabbits and it is not guaranteed they will have strong legs. You never give the HOW a new species comes out of natural selection.
It's not my rhetoric, it's from a creationist article.
I didn't mention speciation so I don't know what you're prattling about here.
When the term came into use is irrelevant, "When" does not explain "how". And that must be done on proven scientific facts.
I agree, so I wonder why you commented on an irrelevance rather that this part...
In our example above, the culling of the sickly gazelle removes its unique genetic contribution from the overall genetic pool of the gazelle population, potentially preventing propagation of its genetic mutations from spreading.
Is that statement not true? If not why not?
(Please do not repeat your red herring about speciation, no one mentioned speciation).
That rhetoric comes right out of evo la la land. Where is your evidence?
LOL, it comes from creationist la la land. You do realize that the "Answersingenesis" apologists who wrote that will go to extraordinary lengths to deny common ancestry and promote the idea of biblical creationism? Even they have to acknowledge natural selection as a phenomena in nature even if they don't believe it leads to speciation beyond the "kind" boundaries.
It is not. No one has ever observed a species giving birth to a different species.. It is genetically impossible.
Derr, isn't that what everyone's been telling you for months? Even on this page?
I can't believe that you are so stupid that you can't understand that this is not what evolution posits.
Are you?
You are not a liar, you are worse. You are ignorant of science and have been brainwashed into accepting the lie and you have no understanding of scientific evidence.
Without reading your link, I say it will not have any verifiable scientific evidence. Now here is a perfect opportunity for you to prove me wrong. All you have to do is take 5-10 minuets to cut and paste the evidence it provides. I predict you will not to that.
There it is, wilfull ignorance and refusal to learn. You predict correctly though, I'm not going to waste my time, seeing as I already posted the pertinent information from the link that demonstrated that creationists accept natural selection.
LOL
Since you like to post what some creationist say about natural selection, let's look at what a well know evolution says about it.
"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection, no one has ever gotten near it.
When eve we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent. The discontinuities are even, more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear suddenly, NOT CONNECTED. with their ancestors by a series of intermediates---Ernst Mayr
Where did he say that? Do you know?
I'm not going to say that you are lying, just lazy and foolish, posting crap from anywhere that you don't even bother to check.
How do I know this? Because you've got two quote mines by two different people mixed into one.
A sad indictment of your honesty, knowledge and character.
And you think anyone is going to be convinced by this drivel you post? Even the least enlightened creationist would be cringing.
