Here it is, the place where you demonstrate the simple thing that you do not and cannot grasp! And it is simply this: one small adaptation, one little change -- yeah, you're right, doesn't transform any organism by much at all.
There would be no argument at all if it could be proven that a single-celled organism (no matter how it arrived) came fully equipped with the capacity to change itself over millions of years and transform into every form of life that has ever existed......
”Adaptation” has been observed, but only within a single family of creatures. It is suggested that small changes over time can lead to entirely different creatures. You only have to look at the diagrams to see those lines, but there is always a “phantom common ancestor” that is never identified but assumed to have existed because evolution cannot survive without them. And there is always that little line at the beginning that leads nowhere.....it has no beginning. It speaks volumes to those not indoctrinated.
But do it hundreds, thousands and millions of time -- one change, not on the original, but on the already changed -- adds up to immense change.
You do understand that this is assumed.....it has never been observed.
All adaptation would produce is more varieties of the same family. The comical part comes in when the theory demands that a creature stays within its clade.....which leads to the absurd claim that pakicetus is a “whale”. You can believe that if you wish. I see it as unsubstantiated nonsense.
You can add a grain of sand to an anthill on the sidewalk, and it means squat. Go ahead, do it again -- still nothing. And again -- and then again and again and again and...and when you hit a million or 10 million and more, then compare that pile to the original and it's different by an order of magnitude.
Wow...a sand dune. Sorry but that was a rather pointless analogy.
Every experiment, even with rapidly reproducing bacteria and viruses never shows that they became anything but a new variety of the same organism. Science has nothing but suggestion and assumption and pressure to stick to its theory, to arrive at its conclusions. I think that you guys are as indoctrinated as you believe we are.
You are exhibiting what I always find on this topic -- a complete failure of imagination, and the ability to distinguish a change here and a change there from continuous, cumulative change. When you learn to do that, you'll be a lot further ahead.
And you demonstrate a great failure to identify “imagination” from “fact” in this particular area of science. It isn’t science that is on trial here...it is macro-evolution.....one section of biological science. Even other branches that accept it as a given, cannot substantiate it. It requires interpretation, which IMO is always skewed to make it fit the evolutionary model. Fossils are a classic example. They have no voice except what biased scientist want to give them. They are great ventriloquists.
Really? You think this is a good analogy....?(By the way, that kind of cumulative change is what makes compound interest so very lucrative, for those who use it properly, and what makes the rest of us poorer as a consequence.)
Sorry mate, but from my viewpoint your arguments are old and full of holes. But they are your choices as mine are my choices.
If this is a debate, then let the readers take all the information on board and come to their own conclusions.