The evidence that scientstis have is that a human has another human, dogs have dogs cats have cats. There is no other evidence. It is not found in the fossil record or anywhere else. That something 'evloved' into something else is only science fiction. Scientist have to go beyond what the evidence says to say such things. Even the start to life scientists do not know how that happened.
I understand your explanation, this is a theory. Scientists are full of this kind of thing.But did it happen in the real world. Scientists can theorize how a loaf of bread could happen with different conditions and all of that, but did or does it happen in real life? With bread no it doesn't, it takes intelligence to do it. Also all sorts of animals and humans have mutations and we don't see any of these changing into something that is not human, or animals changing into something other than what they are.
As a creationist we were not given detailed information on the actually making of life. This is what scientists have taken on. Scientists are really good at the science, but their interpretation of the science, is something else again. They have gone against all practical wisdom and the facts we have to say that 'evolution' explains anything.
This doesn't make sense, because why evolve at all if you are surviving now just fine. Legs or anything would be a burden and discarded, before it was complete. The same with reproduction , just dividing is much more efficient, than needing two sex's. You could fill the earth on just this alone. You don't need any other animals or plants to survive.
Even in development, legs or primordial legs served some purpose. Your statement reveals your ignorance of the theory you are trying to refute. Don't you think you should try to understand the thing you are refuting? No, that would be too much for creationists, who maintain their ignorance at all costs. To do otherwise would jeopardize your precious faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.
That's right, it doesn't deviate too far typically. That's why it takes 3 billion fucking years to go from a cell to a human. A human is still just a community of cells, so we didn't even deviate all that much.
I was answering a question from James R, about fish not needing legs so they don't evolve any. And this is exactly the point, why would anything evolve something that is useless, and may even be a death sentence. That is why for a leg or many other things need a complete system of parts before anyone of them is any good or useful. Also the DNA tries to keep the life form centered, and not to go off in some direction.
Scientists always use the billions of years card, as though anything could happen because of time. But is that so.?
We can pass our traits to our children, over time some areas of the population their offspring, may grow taller and some from another area Our skin color maybe different, these kinds of changes do happen. But we are still human. We are not chimps or anything else, than human. The same with dogs and with cats.
