Quote:
I din't claim evidense of design in my post. I simply state that if anything OTHER than chance created mutations/variation then you have design, not evolution.
Example: I like dogs. I like dogs so much that I create a new breed by crossing terriers with great danes. This is not evolution. This is design (mine)
Example 2: I like dogs, but I wish they were more like cats. So I splice their genes to create cat-dogs. This too is not evolution, but design. |
Then I'm not clear that you understand the concept of evolution. Minor mutations and variations within species happen all the time and quite randomly. Some are taller, some shorter, some faster, some a bit darker, some a bit lighter, etc. etc. Those variations that result in an increased chance of survival, and thus an increased chance of passing on those genes, will continue. Those variations that make survival more difficult will eventually fade away. All this over generations after generations after generations.
Now one of the biggest engines of evolutionary change has been environmental change. Continenents shift, temperatures rise and fall, seas come and go. So you might have two seperate populations of the same species, but the local environment of one population goes through very slow changes and thus that population of species will also go through very slow changes as their natural variations produce traits that aid survival in the new conditions.
That is not design, that is random variation to random environments mixed with natural selection. Simple as pie.