What makes you assume that I don’t read what I quote or that I can’t comprehend what I read? Are you suggesting that because I don’t accept what you accept as truth that I must be mentally deficient ? Thank you.
1) The fact that you keep repeating things that have already been explained to you to be wrong, and 2) no.
I’m glad it met with your approval. So little does.
Monitor your tone.
Didn’t we already ascertain that natural selection drives adaptation. The genes that selected for the darker coloring became dominant in the population because the lighter colored ones did not survive as well as the ones better camouflaged. The fact that the moths returned to their original color never seems to be mentioned though. So adaptation can take a creature to a new appearance because of a changed environment, and back again. How is that evolving?
Because it's the very definition of evolution - change in allele frequency over time.
All of which was open to science’s own interpretation of how they believe it all happened. It’s when you venture deeper into the theory and why evolutionists shy away from all mention of abiogenesis, as if it has nothing to do with evolution.
Because it doesn't.
But the fact is, abiogenesis is the first step in the “process”......if you have no firmly established first step, then how does the journey continue?
This is like saying that we need to understand the origin of mass in order to observe how gravity occurs. I assume you accept the theory of gravity despite this?
If life is found to be created, (because it can't be a random accident) then the whole theory ends up in the trash.
False. It's possible for both to be true.
The pre-conceived ideas relating to all things in nature, influence their conclusions. Everything had to fit into that evolutionary model.....regardless of how absurd it sounded, science had a way of making it sound reasonable....but only to the indoctrinated.
If you want to believe their conclusions, go right ahead.....they do not influence my thinking on the matter at all.
Conspiracy mongering nonsense.
Not a good analogy because no chihuahua or Great Dane would ever have been produced by nature. No artificially produced animal would have been selected for in the natural world because all were beautifully designed in the first place with instincts to reproduce replicas of themselves, which they still do.
What difference does it make whether the selection is natural or artificial?
And what you have just said makes no sense. You say that chihuahua and great danes were "produced", but then assert that all animals only produce "replicas of themselves". Not only is this demonstrably false, it is contradictory. Either there is enough variety for both great danes and chihuahuas to come from a common stock, or there is no variety and everything just produces replicas. Which is it?
Even genetically close relatives in the wild do not mate with any other than their own species. Humans can artificially cross them, but the offspring are invariably sterile. Why do you suppose that genetic roadblock exists?
Because that's the way genes work. But it doesn't prevent one population of one species diversifying into two species who can no longer interbreed.
Now this is where I find the second greatest leap of faith in the whole theory. These classifications in diagrammatic form lead one to believe that all in these classifications must be related, just because of the way they are classified and presented
I have already addressed this. It is totally misleading IMO.
It is the assumption that because creatures share a “similarity” that it must come from a common ancestor.
That's not the assumption. The conclusion of common ancestry is drawn from far more than mere "similarity", as I have explained.
The strange thing is, no one actually knows who these phantom ancestors are....they exist only in science’s imagination.....and on their diagrams. This is one of the “might have’s” that turn into a “must have”. I don’t buy something that unsubstantiated. It’s a suggestion masquerading as fact.
Keep asserting that and ignoring the fossils, if you like.
Tiktaalik is a classic example of assuming that this fish was somehow a transitional form between land and sea creatures....but doesn’t evolution teach that whales descended from land dwelling animals whereas tiktaalik is a fish wanting to be a land dweller. Can evolution not make up its mind?
This is one of the silliest questions I've read you post, Deeje. You know that there are many different animals with different lines of ancestry, right?
What taxa do the original single celled originators of life fall into?
Eukaryotes.
If nothing falls outside of its taxa, then how did the various taxa come about?
Within that taxa. Plants, vertebrates, invertebrates, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, humans, dogs, ants, etc. are all eukaryotes.
Now that made me laugh out loud...
I have as much religious bias as you have non religious bias based on your own indoctrination.
I'm not indoctrinated. I was raised with no religion on any specific belief relating to God. I educated myself and came to my own conclusions in my own time.
Don't project your indoctrination on to me.
We all believe what we want to believe...whether its truth or not is in the eye of the beholder.
Sure. The difference being that some of us are forced to believe things by family, or threats of hell, or simple delusions or desperation. Others come to believe things for good reasons.
I have evaluated this question very carefully and the more I research what science actually claims against what real evidence they produce to support them, I am left with no other choice than to go where my own logic tells me is the truth. If your logic dictates the opposite to you, then that is where you should be.
I have no doubt that you have evaluated the question carefully. But I do doubt that you have honestly and openly considered the evidence.
It is clear that you reject evolution because your religion tells you to, nothing more.
I can’t believe you said that. The brilliantly designed and diverse reproductive systems of all creatures on this planet do not in any way resemble what you are suggesting. SMH
Pregnancy and childbirth is a perfect example of single cells becoming unicellular organisms.
Do you dispute this? Do you not understand how pregnancy occurs?
There it is again....the classifications that supposedly link creatures that are unrelated to an imaginary chain of evolution. There is no chain if all the links are missing.
There is a chain if we find evidence of it and it becomes the only reasonable conclusion.
The adaptations are varieties of what these creatures “are”....not necessarily what they “were”.
That makes no sense, even if your assumptions are true. If things only reproduce what they are, then they must also be reproducing what they were.
The examples put forward by Darwin were not formerly finches or tortoises or iguanas....they were simply adapted varieties of what already existed. They never became something else and never would.
(Emphasis mine)
Right there. You've just done it.
You've just demonstrated that you can't debate this honestly, Deeje.
I took a look of trouble to explain to you, with no ambiguity, condescension or insult (in fact, I was EXTREMELY complimentary of you) to inform you that this statement you have made is something evolution has never claimed and would never claim, and yet you keep repeating it.
And here you are, doing it again.
You're finished Deeje. There is no point trying to reason with someone who refuses to learn.
My sentiments exactly. 
