Well, this is familiar......when you have no reply be sure to reduce your opponent to a lower educational level in order to elevate yourself.
I'm not sure what else you expected. I mean, you come into a forum populated by scientists and science enthusiasts, blast pretty much all of science, claim that science is a giant "fraud factory", and accuse scientists of persistent deliberate lying and exaggeration......when all the while you don't know hardly anything about science; your level of ignorance is so profound you actually think "fish", "mouse", and "fly" are species designations.
Were you hoping that your ignorance would go unnoticed? Were you expecting us to just give you a free pass, even after all the horrible things you've said about science and scientists?
Whoa...here's the 'dishonesty' card getting played again. That's getting a bit old as well.
Then stop being so dishonest.
Must have been memorable....because no, I don't remember it
Really? You have no memory of our earlier exchange? Is that why you keep repeating the same creationist talking points after they've been shot down over and over? Is that why everyone's attempts to educate you on the basics has been for naught?
Just how much of what we see from you here is due to you forgetting everything from one post to the next?
OK, so where in this reply you posted to me pages ago, is there supposed to be something that proves your point?
Wow, you really do have some issues, don't you?
Again, this was all about how after we show examples of evolutionary change, you respond with "that's adaptation, not evolution". I started a thread to explore that talking point and asked you to explain the differences between adaptation and evolution. You responded by citing the Encyclopedia Britannica. So this was my response that you subsequently ignored...
As far as the rest of your post regarding your talking point of "it's adaptation, not evolution", while it's nice to see you cite something other than TWS for once, your citing of the Encyclopedia Britannica is rather odd. The reason is, in reading through their sections on adaptation and evolution, they basically say that populations adapt by evolving.
Here is how they define "adaptation" (relative to the examples we're discussing).....
Second, and more commonly, the word adaptation refers either to the process of becoming adapted or to the features of organisms that promote reproductive success relative to other possible features. Here the process of adaptation is driven by genetic variations among individuals that become adapted to—that is, have greater success in—a specific environmental context. A classic example is shown by the melanistic (dark) phenotype of the peppered moth (Biston betularia), which increased in numbers in Britain following the Industrial Revolution as dark-coloured moths appeared cryptic against soot-darkened trees and escaped predation by birds. The process of adaptation occurs through an eventual change in the gene frequency relative to advantages conferred by a particular characteristic, as with the coloration of wings in the moths.
The third and more popular view of adaptation is in regard to the form of a feature that has evolved by natural selection for a specific function. Examples include the long necks of giraffes for feeding in the tops of trees, the streamlined bodies of aquatic fish and mammals, the light bones of flying birds and mammals, and the long daggerlike canine teeth of carnivores.
So "adaptation" is a process where populations undergo changes in allele frequencies, due to natural selection acting on heritable traits that arise via mutation. Well guess what? That's evolution!
Thus, your argument "that's adaptation, not evolution" makes absolutely no sense.
The other examples of 'the giraffe's long neck designed to reach the tops of trees....or the streamlines bodies of aquatic fish and mammals....or the light bones of flying creatures....or the teeth of carnivores'. These are all clear examples of design IMV.
And as we've seen, your opinions on science in general are from a position of extreme ignorance, and your views on evolutionary biology are from a position of extreme religious bias.
Well guess what?.....All of that is speculation that has no solid evidence to back it up. The changes in allele frequencies have another explanation.....they were designed.....beautifully and skillfully designed.
Exactly how did you determine those new genetic sequences to have been "designed"? Describe your methodology.