Darwin taught evolution required the emergence of new species.
No, Darwin proposed a mechanism which explained how new species emerge. You're putting the horse before the cart.
The development of the Theory of Evolution was a consequence of the observation of the present diversity of life, together with the available evidence from the fossil record.
Evolution requires something new not merely an improvement within a species or change within a species.
Evolution doesn't "require" anything, its an explanation for what we observe in nature.
However, the development of new species with unique characteristics (colouration, internal organs, head and limb shape, methods of reproduction, wings ect, ect) is a very well studied area in the ToE. Here's a paper describing how Ebenaceae diversified into at least 24 "morphologically and ecologically clearly differentiated" species in the past 9 million years, the majority of which have emerged in the last 2 million years.
Please don't respond with "it's still a tree though".
Some will present that as evolution but it is not within the meaning of evolution as taught by Darwinism. Improvement can be adaptation to change and it is not evolutionary.
Adaptation is one of a series of mechanisms withing the framework of the ToE. What barrier is there that prevents small scale adaptations leading to the development of novel features? Would you like to know how many different times eyes have evolved? Or wings? Or a sense of smell?
Upvote
0