No dude, variation of base organisms directly supports evolution. How do you think things evolve? You realize every individual is genetically unique right? Genes from each parent combine and create a unique combination for the next generation. Through natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation the base species experiences evolution. Once you have enough speciation occur, and enough time passes, the ancestors of the observed species can appear to be 100% different from what you end up with. I don't understand how people can understand that a species will continue to adapt and split up based on natural selection like a family tree as time goes forward, and think the same thing didn't happen in the past.

[quote]No dude, variation of base organisms directly supports evolution. How do you think things evolve? [/quote] They don't evolve. Simple as that. Phenotypic variations of base genetic designs which is all that has been observed in recorded history supports Creation. Vary and adapt, sure. Evolve, not so much. [quote] You realize every individual is genetically unique right? Genes from each parent combine and create a unique combination for the next generation. [/quote] Kinda. The coding for each gene is the same, regardless. Every human has the same basic gene coding for say their ear but the variations of each ear is not found in unique genetic coding but rather the coding surrounding the gene (this is in effect the essence of Epigenetics). Genes are not unique. The coding around each gene is. Every species has the same fundamental coding for each of its genes. This is where Epigenetics presents a valid argument supporting the long standing belief of creation, as if God created a number of base organisms with minor variation within each set (color, size, shape, etc.). It may not agree with ideologies of evolutionists but the argument is supported all the same. [quote] Through natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation the base species experiences evolution. Once you have enough speciation occur, and enough time passes, the ancestors of the observed species can appear to be 100% different from what you end up with. [/quote] Still only speculation to support the theory. [quote] I don't understand how people can understand that a species will continue to adapt and split up based on natural selection like a family tree as time goes forward, and think the same thing didn't happen in the past.[/quote] Not sure what u meant in this part. Believe what you want but be very skeptical of science, it is just as easily manipulated as religion to push agendas. Enjoy your Sabbath.

Variety and adaptation equals evolution. If the only thing we had to support it was what we've recorded in recent history then yes, I would agree that it still has a huge hole in it. But the fossil record directly supports evolution and what we have observed as well. You will need to make the fossil record disappear or magically change to disprove evolution. Your taking aspects of evolution, saying its not evolution and then claiming it supports creation. Which is a bunch of crap.

[quote]Variety and adaptation equals evolution. If the only thing we had to support it was what we've recorded in recent history then yes, I would agree that it still has a huge hole in it. But the fossil record directly supports evolution and what we have observed as well. You will need to make the fossil record disappear or magically change to disprove evolution. [/quote] The fossil record only supports more speculation. Carbon 14 dating is out dated and gives highly questionable results. Newly created volcanic glass of recent years dates has been shown to date it several hundred thousand years. When the cumulative error of a series of tests to produce a result has an uncertainty greater than 100%, take the results with a grain of salt. [quote] Your taking aspects of evolution, saying its not evolution and then claiming it supports creation. Which is a bunch of crap.[/quote] The theory of Evolution may include serial adaptations but adaptation unto itself is not necessarily evolution, nor does it support evolution anymore so than creation. Saying evolution is adaptation and vice versa is as ignorant and incorrect as saying all scotch whiskey is whiskey and that all whiskey is scotch whiskey. Evolution is a concept derived from observed adaptation, not the other way around (like with laws and theories). With regards to Creation, Adaptation is a concept derived from Creation.