Well, this indoctrination leads to productive and functional contributors to society in scientific and biomedical research, evidence based medicine, farming and agriculture technologies, etc. The Theory itself is confirmed by finding after finding and lays a predictive framework that makes accurate prediction time and time again.
No, you can not credit Evolution Theory for those things. Those are repeatably measurable sciences not a theory. The paid scientists may advocate evolution, but they are being paid for saying that. There is an agenda and we know this, so let us not beat around the bush.
Now, Creationism on the other hand produces nothing of value besides indoctrination to its respective religion. It also inhibits its victims in participating in any of the above mentioned fields of contributing endeavour.
That is religiousism not creationism. Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, though with an antithesis narrative. What served the elites back then who fund the sciences are now behind another horse.
Sure. I'm talking about changes in alleles in a population over time though, not biological metamorphosis.
Ok, so!
Again, I'm talking about changes in alleles in a population over time. There aren't any limits in this process, these alleles are known to accumulate mutations constantly, and if left unchecked in two sets of isolated populations that were once the same, they eventually lead to a speciation event where the two populations will eventually not be able to interbreed and then continue on to diverge in their appearances and functions forever, never being able to create viable offspring again - we see this in ring species as well as in horse/donkey hybrids, and lion/tiger hybrids, etc. This is literally the speciation event that means they'll never converge as one species ever again.
You have just proven that species are locked down and that hybridisation in its unadulterated meaning can never happen.
No, didn't you even read what I wrote? Is an Otter transitional? Is a Hippo transitional? How about Seals? Walruses? Manatees? All of these creatures have literally come from completely land-based mammal species and in all likeliness could probably themselves be transitioning to a Whale-like form too. In short, we have a very rich fossil record of the land mammal to sea mammal progression of the cetateans, do any of their fossils look like intermediate failures?
There is adaptation within the species and is expected, but it is not evolution from one species to a completely different one, that is a whale to a man, which accounts for evolution Theory teachings.
No, not just two, these are just two examples I can examine myself of the evolution from synapsids which the theory of evolution predicted would have been present in the fossil record - we're just lucky enough that these two made it through alive and aren't relegated to a footnote in the fossil record.
Your looking at the finite and neglecting what should have been on the macro, too numerous of failed neomorpha and xenomorphs species in the inbetween processes.
The Fossil record is a very rich record of the mammal transition from synapsids in its own right. We have thousands of them. Because we have thousands of them, we've been able to track the subtle gradient of the evolution of the mammalian middle ear from the four part jaw bones of the synapsid family we arose from:
Again it is adaptation and not evolution my friend. These defintions of terms can not be confused. You cannot use evolution whenever it is clearly an adaption process, which is absent of millions of millions of years of neomorph lifeforms that came into being but were unsustained. You would see a horror book of fossils and that you do not see.
See:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 for a more comprehensive breakdown on what we know - feel free to point out something there and challenge it, we can work through it and see where your understanding goes wrong.
That is trying to claim a macro evolution and fails to provide the evidence and I find the terms confused again in an effort to sway me to think that the micro is somehow the macro and that adaptation is evolution. Come on friend, please, please.
Really, so you are a well funded teacher and/or researcher for the Australian government who sets teaching policy right? Now how did I know that my friend? Good guess!
I love Australia and Australians.
