Some here seem to be confusing species with genus or kind. Remember biology 101?
Species: "a : a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specif : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding (2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species"
Kind: "fundamental nature or quality : a group united by common traits or interests"
Genus: "1 : a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specif : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species 2 : a class of objects divided into several subordinate species"
The Genus is the classification of common traits and ability to procreate within the genus. FOr example, the horse kind.
A Species is a variation based upon loss of possabilities within the genetic pool of traits within a Genus that make that Genus class unique, which results in minor changes within the pre-existing gene pool. For example, you have Arabian horses, which are a minor change within the overall kind.
The entire current argument for evolution appears to be that if a kind of animal goes through enough adaptations, subsequence generations will eventually adapt right out of the Genus classification and be different enough to warrent it's own Genus class. A dog adapting into a cat, for example.
Then when asked of the evidence, they give many hundreds of examples of a species change, when the question clearly wanted evidence of a Genus change. When called upon that, they assert that given enough changes, it will eventually result in a new Genus, despite:
1. It has never been duplicated in the lab
2. It has never been observed in nature
3. It is not occuring anywhere at this time in history,
requiring:
1. Faith that it is true.
Different species can mate and produce young. Different Genus can mate if they wanted to, but will never result in offspring. They haven't been able to do that even in the lab. It just don't happen. A sheep and a horse will never have offspring. The DNA is too different. As a matter of fact, a sheep and a dog, or a sheep and a fish, or a sheep and a cat, or a cat and a bird will never have young, and especially not young that's half bird-half cat.
See, when we say "show us evidence of evolution" we do not mean species changes, we mean the stuff that will finalize whether evolution is true or not. If all you have to support your theory is the idea that eventually the enviroment will require a Genus class to adapt out of their own kind in order to survive, without observation, without documenation, without repeatabliity then you have a bad theory.
Here is what you have:
Fish Genus (adaptation; species of fish)---?--->Lizard Genus (adaptation; species of lizards)---?--->horse genus (adaptation; species of horses)---?--->bird Genus (adaptation; species of bird)---?---> etc.
They're all fully formed, they can all easily survive in any climate on earth thus not requiring the need to adapt out to a different Genus class in order to survive. Can you imagine how bad an envrioment it would have to be in order for a horse to adapt itself into something else that can stand the extreme climate? But the horse would have to be in the inhospitable enviroment in order to adapt, otherwise it wouldn't adapt. And can you imagine what kind of stupid horse it would be to want to go into an enviroment in which survival required it to become something else? It's nearly unanomus; there are variations within kinds. You don't need to convince people of that anymore. Now it's time to move on to the next stage. Observe and document a Genus class change occuring from kind to kind in the present. Show us through documentation and observation that it happens. If evolution is true, it should still be going on in the world. And if you can't find any of that happening in the present, don't you think it could be reasonable to assume that it doesn't and never did?
The ultimate test, you know. You guys have been claiming evolution is true for 180 years. It about time you buckled down and presented some of this "proof" and these "facts" you say you have. Shouldn't be to difficult, if you're right. It gets to the point where I think you can't produce a shred.
Proof is on the positive. We can't prove evolution didn't happen (if it happened it will leave evidences for you to present, if it didn't happen there will be no evidence of it and because of that you cannot present nonexistence proof). YOu guys need to give us some observed, documented evidence that it did, and does. That's it. No millions of years ago, no Triassic or Jurassic, right now, in the present. Bottom line: just answer the question.
Otherwise you have nothing more than: "long ago and far away...."
