OK, please define what you mean by a 'kind'. Are all insects the same kind? All butterflies? All mammals? All primates?<quoted text>
You're stuck on your sciences word species. 4 species of Rabbit LOL
There is one Kind of Rabbit. As I specified in my post. Macro Evolution is one KIND giving rise to another KIND.
We have a documented example of speciation. That shows evolution in action. If *your* understanding of evolution doesn't says that this was, in fact, evolution, then the problem is in your understanding of the concept.
Well, even if you believe this, you might want to learn what others think and attempt to understand why they think that way. If nothing else, it leads to better discussion."You didn't come here to learn about evolution"
Why would I? Evolution is a MYTH just as the Big Bang, Spontaneous Life is.
But, more importantly, you may be wrong and in attempting to learn why others think they way they do, you might have to re-think your own prejudices and actually learn how the real world functions.
The Big bang is a fact: the universe is expanding from a hot, dense state where nuclear reactions were happening everywhere. The evidence is overwhelming concerning this point. That you refuse to actually understand what the science says only shows that you want to hold on to your dogmatic beliefs and that truth is not your goal: only winning.
Yes, indeed. So? Does that show that evolution didn't happen? Does it show that we don't have documentation of *any* inheritance lines? How does the rarity of the data negate the conclusions we can make from the data available to us?Fossilization odds increase if the organism happened to exist in large numbers or lived in or around sediment. For example, trilobites, ancient marine arthropods, met both criteria, so they're rather common fossils. The Tyrannosaurus rex, however, is far rarer. It was large and land-dwelling, and as a top predator made up a far smaller percentage of the population.
Again, yes indeed. Does that negate the conclusion that species have changed over time? Does it negate the conclusion that new species appear, change and disappear? No. So evolution does happen.Plus, fossils may be set in stone, but they're far from impervious. Like all rocks, they erode, melt and fragment. Factor in all the fossils we haven't uncovered with the ones we can't decipher properly (due to partial fossilization or insufficient technology), and the fossil record gets even spottier."
And this is a flat-out lie. We see changes in the species of trilobites over time. We see changes in the species of brachiopods over time. We see changes in the species of snails over time (Stephen Gould started out looking at evolution of snails).We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!2
Simply false. The problem is, of course, the invertebrates are not as 'sexy' as vertebrates, so they don't get as much press, but they are very much studied and the pattern of change over time in invertebrates *is* a significant collection of data in favor of the theory of evolution.If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE!
Of course, the response will be that trilobites are all 'the same kind', so the evolution of different trilobite species, their radiation and decline over the course of hundreds of millions of years, is deemed irrelevant. Just shows how far the fundies will go to deny reality.