Actually I described it in detail.
Er...
Different kinds of life exhibit phenotypic plasticity,
Which kinds? And to what degree?
in that the genetic expression is altered in response to different environmental triggers.
How is it altered such that is produces a new, permanent phenotype?
What happens to the 'original' version - should it not die out completely since all members of the old 'kind' will be exposed to the same environmental triggers?
For example, a lizard species that changes its diet from bugs to plants will gradually change their expression in shape of the skull and teeth and even the shape of the stomach, this change also happens rapidly.
Why gradually?
If, as you assert with no evidence, these alternate phenotypes' "programs" are already there, shouldn't these new adaptive phenotypes pop up in a single generation?
Oh, right, you also say it can happen rapidly. What determines the speed? How do environmental triggers activate the specific re-organization of genomes?
This seems like a rather simple experiment away from unequivocal support - when do you plan to start the research program to test this creation science hypothesis?
There are countless other examples. The Galapagos finches, always lauded as a symbol of Darwinism,
In reality, they are "lauded" as good examples of natural selection, which they are.
are found to move rapidly within these phenotypic cycles, in response to seasonal changes.
Um... not even close. Weird that you present yourself as having great knowledge on this material.
While it is true that beak measurements fluctuate over short periods of time (not "seasonally"), it is also true that more permanent changes - evolution, if you will - has been observed in them.
They are not slowly evolving along some evolutionary trajectory away from finches as was originally fantasized.
Again, you don't seem to understand the significance of them.
You see, Darwin noticed that the finches on the Galapagos were very similar, but not identical to, finches found on the mainland, and that there seemed to be more of a variety on the Galapagos islands versions than on the mainland.
The longitudinal studies of the Grants and such documented the changes in response to longer-term environmental changes like droughts. These were examples of selection in action. Interestingly, Darwin wrote more about pigeons than finches in the Origin, as he had done a lot of pigeon breeding, I suppose. Finches are mentioned but 3 times. The Galapagos islands are mentioned 23 times, primarily in discussions on the uniqueness of species on the individual islands and their similarity to various mainland species and how the 'struggle for survival' may play a role:
In the Galapagos Archipelago, many even of the birds, though so well adapted for flying from island to island, are distinct on each; thus there are three closely-allied species of mocking-thrush, each confined to its own island. Now let us suppose the mocking-thrush of Chatham Island to be blown to Charles Island, which has its own mocking-thrush: why should it succeed in establishing itself there? We may safely infer that Charles Island is well stocked with its own species, for annually more eggs are laid there than can possibly be reared; and we may infer that the mocking-thrush peculiar to Charles Island is at least as well fitted for its home as is the species peculiar to Chatham Island.
p. 402
Not sure why so many creationists misrepresent this whole issue.
Mutations virtually always just make something worse and more degraded over time.
Except when they don't.
At best they usually just offer cosmetic changes, like a simple shift in body color.
Sure, just
cosmetic.
That's why textbooks love to talk about the colors of beetles and moths, and then jump to the ridiculous conclusion that the beetle and moth themselves were entirely created by the same process.
Right - better to jump to the completely fantasy-driven conclusion that they were created as-is by a tribal deity whose very existence is in question.
Such reasoning would be laughed at the world over if not for Evolution being the only narrative offering a place for people to doubt God, particularly the God of the Bible.
Right, you totally got it all worked out.
The only thing natural selection really does is filter out unhealthy mutants. You don't build new animals by culling unfit ones.
Neat assertion. Tell us all - what is your definition of "mutation".
The mystical Darwinian belief in natural selection as a grand intricate animal-designer is absurd.
Well now that you assert so, it must be the case.
But seeing as how you offer ZERO supporting evidence for your alternative, just some fantastic assertions, and there is a great deal of evidence supportive of that which you dismiss via strawmen and such, gosh, I am shocked that the scientific community the world over has not adopted your idiosyncratic and evidence-free alternative.
Get to work on the evidence for that "genetic programming" for these new phenotypes triggered by the environment; how these 'programs' for these new phenotypes are kept in check until they are 'triggered', etc.
I look forward to your paradigm-changing evidence that will absolutely not consist of calling evolution a religion and a series of unsupported stories..
And also please explain why we do not have roughly the same number of 'kinds' that were on the ark (for which there is no evidence, either) seeing as how according to your evidence-averse claims, should have simply been replaced as the originals adopted the same new phenotypes to adapt to similar environments.
