If you don't think different dog breeds are a new species then how come in every case of life tested by evolutionists,in every case they don't get a new species? This is my point that keeps getting overlooked.Nicki wrote:I don't think different dog breeds are different species though. It's possibly true that some dog breeds can't interbreed, but what's the reason for that? It's probably not because their reproductive cells (egg and sperm) won't combine anymore but for a purely practical reason, the dogs being very different sizes.abelcainsbrother wrote:My point stands still though that if normal variation amongst a population is evolution? The whole evolution tree is wrong and is not possible. What ya'll are calling speciation is just normal variation amongst a population and you're claiming it evolved when we get normal variation. Just think of all of the different dog breeds but ya'll are claiming speciation when a new kind of dog is produced by the normal variation of reproduction amongst a population and not all dogs can breed but it matters none because you still get dogs with what they can breed with. So it is not important at all like evolutionists claim about not being able to breed. It is a myth made up that a new kind of dog is produced that cannot breed with all other kinds of dogs to claim it has evolved. It does not lead to another kind of life above the species level and its not just because I say it,we have examples that show it doesn't. I'm just using dogs for this example,but it applies to other populations also.
The whole evolution tree of life must be totally redone to show only horizontal variation instead of verticle evolution.Perhaps evolutionary scientists and creationists can come together now and come up with a better tree of life.
The idea in evolution (by my understanding) is that different populations of a species become separated (physically or just because of a slight difference) and then gradually become more and more different, as they adapt to their environments, until they're no longer reproductively compatible - from which point they could become more different still and end up as obviously separate species.
OK but what happens when they do get separated? What does the evidence show? The evidence shows it still cannot and does not evolve above the species level. It still produces the same kind of life with normal variation. This is my point. If the evidence showed it does lead to a new species above the species level? I would accept evolution,but the evidence shows it doesn't even after life has adapted too. This is because they are simply documenting normal variation amongst a population and using it for evidence life evolves. This keeps getting overlooked and ignored for some reason.
I'm just a person who focuses on evidence and the evidence shows life does not evolve and so I reject evolution and cannot accept the idea that God used evolution to produce all life on earth. The evidence is just not there and not even close. People mostly believe evolution based on the scientific preaching and explanation and they don't focus on what the evidence shows.