A Question which Atheists could not answer

[M.I.A.]

ok, so im out of the thread on a "i believe in evolution".. in theory at least.

although how it is used to reinforce a persons beliefs is entirely up to the individual.

imo,

it in no way discredits god.

i mean imparting todays knowledge of science on previous scripture would have been an impossible feat..

especially taking into account lack of internet.


it would be unwise to disregard it altogether simply because the people telling you about it put there own personal beliefs into the mix.

...but i guess thats life, i suppose.

 

[Muhaba]

You could argue this about the very early stages of life evolution but not all the later changes (bipedalism etc) which occurred long after the planet had stabilised to something like today's environment.

It is all after the fact. you see a certain trend, a certain pattern, and then you say that this happened like this and is according to evolution theory. IMO bipedalism should've appeared first (after the tail) and later quadrupedalism. why should quadrupedalism have come first and much later bipedalism? This shows that evolutionists are forming their "theory" according to what they observe and then say that what they observed is according to the theory of evolution, expected patterns, blah blah blah!

 

[~Zaria~]

Prior to the DNA analysis Creationists argued about whether Neanderthals were human or not. You have elected to call them humans, while Hulk (earlier in this thread) found Qur'anic evidence to say they were apes.

This is what brother Hulk actually said:

Does this mean that human beings evolved from a lower species? No. As revealed in the Quran, Adam (as) was the first human being and he was created by Allah.

"And when your Lord said to the angels, 'Truly, I will create a man from clay. So when I have completed him, and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down prostrate to him.' And the angels prostrated, one and all. Save for Satan, who was too proud to, and disbelieved. He said to him, 'O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating to what I have created with My two hands? Are you arrogant, or too exalted?' He said,'I am better than he; You created me from fire and created him from clay'" (Qur'an 38:71-76)

His following statement refers to the punishment that Allah imposed upon the Israelites for breaking the Sabbath (by transforming them into apes):

So what is this dilemma creationists are supposed to be having? Is it because you found remnants of "human-like apes"? SubhanAllah, it was revealed in the Quran that there were human beings who were turned into apes.

Now we have sequenced the DNA, interbreeding is confirmed.

Another false claim:

The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal's humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases.

"This is a drop in the bucket if you consider that the human genome is 3 billion bases," said Edward Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who led one of the research teams.

For comparison, the genomes of chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, differ from humans by about 30 million to 50 million base pairs.

The findings also appear to refute speculations by some scientists that Neanderthals and humans interbred in more recent times. "We see no evidence of mixing 30,000 to 40,000 years ago in Europe," Rubin said. "We don't exclude it, but from the data that we have, we have no evidence that pages were ripped from one genome and put in the other."

http://www.livescience.com/1122-neanderthal-99-5-percent-human.html

{ ^ This is a report from evolutionists - who themselves, accept the 'humanness' of the 'Neandethals'. }

This makes it certain that they are very closely related and therefore definitively not apes (from whom we diverged very much longer ago).

Interestingly, apes of today have chosen not to continue this 'divergence' to evolve into humans.

Forget about not being able to find fossils that show evolving species......we are not even able to witness this phenomenon today, even though we have our supposed ancestors in our midst.

"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong." (The US National Academy of Science)

There has been no "observation' of evolution" - for it to be classified as a fact.

And neither has this hoax of a theory been "tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples."

The term 'missing link' predates Darwin and is next to meaningless.

The term 'missing link' is meaningless?

Interesting! This is your statement:

Vast numbers of fossils have been discovered since his day and many of the so-called 'missing links' discovered.

My question is: What 'missing links' are you actually referring to?

Please make mention of these with full references.

This is standard scientific method, used across all disciplines.

We have not observed evolution.

We have found fossils - many of which are fraudelent or belonging to another animal.

It has been mentioned in this thread. Piltdown Man is a famous historical hoax, quite entertaining and very well known. It gets Creationists excited, although it plays no role role in evolutionary science.

It's as irrelevant to modern evolutionary studies as alchemy is to modern chemistry.

Not only was the Piltdown Man a hoax, but in fact many others as well.

In the interest of refreshing our memories:

​

These use the average rate of mutation over millennia to calculate when ancestral species 'should' have existed.

Again, lets make this clear:

It is NOT possible for a large number of beneficial mutations to have spread through a population and become 'fixed'.

Please, for the sake of progressing in this thread, lets not repeat false or unsubstantiated statements that have already been discussed earlier on.

You may refer to this post and its link again: http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifi...atheists-could-not-answer-16.html#post1604315



A MUST Watch: The Fake Ape Men

​

************************


The 'theory' of evolution is not based on science and neither is it evidence-based.
It is not reproducible and never will be.

TOE is probably the biggest hoax created by our secular society and continues to be spread by those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being, Allah, who has already clarified our origins and creation for us.

What is even sadder, is when people do not understand the theory and all of its flaws and discrepancies themselves (as is evident in this thread), but continue to try to force this falsehood upon others.
What type of mischief is this?

SubhanAllah.

My advice to my brothers and sisters here - please do not waste any further time on this discussion.
Our time is precious - the Aakhirah and the meeting of our Rabb awaits.

The truth has been made clear for us by our Merciful Allah.

It does not lie within scattered bones.

:wa:

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Independent,

I haven't been following the Neanderthal discussion too closely. But I was confused by this post:

Now we have sequenced the DNA, interbreeding is confirmed. This makes it certain that they are very closely related and therefore definitively not apes (from whom we diverged very much longer ago). Whether we call them another 'species' or 'sub species' of human is not that important. For clarity I'll call them a sub species from now on.
[...]
Therefore: these 3 species are plainly not apes, they are close cousins of modern humans (as is consistent with TOE). Neanderthals and Densiovans are sub species that have branched off and died out. Homo erectus (if that what it is) is a predecessor species to the other 2 and to modern humans. They have also died out. (All consistent with TOE and unaccounted for by Creationism.)

Close cousins yes - human the same as us, no. They are distinguishable from us in dna, appearance and behaviour. All of this is consistent with TOE. It is not consistent with any Creationist story. No Creationist story accounts for these sub species.

The whole thing is further strong evidence in favour of TOE, and negative evidence against Creationism.

Earlier when we were talking about assumptions and facts, you mentioned:

If I were to assume a direct ancestral connection between specific fossils, that would be an assumption. But I'm not making that assumption and neither does evolutionary science today. (Even though many members here still think they do.)

You said that ancestral connections were uncertain and it is not part of evolutionary science. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but there seems to be a contradiction here.

In a different post responding to a video that was posted, you mentioned:

The video highlights the Creationists' single favourite example, the Bacterial Flagellum, first popularised by Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution). The flagellum has a swimming mechanism which Behe compares to an outboard motor.

Behe's contention that the flagellum is irreducibly complex has already been proved wrong (it can be broken down into yet simpler forms). It's a very complicated argument that is difficult for non specialists to follow. See extensive articles here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Let us assume that this particular component is not irreducibly complex. There are still many other examples of irreducible complexity which you did not comment on. The example of the eye has been brought up many times, and here it is again from one of the links I gave earlier:

...A common argument discussed in this line of argument is the eye. For the eye to do what it's suppose to, it needs several components, a lens, muscles to adjust it, light receptors, nerves, and so on... Recently a reply has been formulated by evolutionists that speculates on how mollusc could have evolved from eye-less to seeing, by intermediate steps. The speculation goes that it went from pigment rich skin, light sensitive spots, light sensitive cavities, light sensitive cavities with liquid in it and finally to light observing with liquid and a lens. And some of the needed intermediate steps have been found among the mollusc. However the speculation is incomplete. For the theory to work; each change should have been possible from a single genetic mutation. So is it possible for a snail to go from light sensitive to light observing cells and at the same time evolve the necessary neural changes for the light impulses to be registered, let alone to make sense? Some might reply, that they could have adapted to the new type of impulses. But somebody who claims that doesn't really understand what adaptation means. Adaptation in biology, is a variation on survival of the fittest. It explains how a feature can be preserved after it mutated. It does not account for the origin of the new feature. So replying to me that they could have adapted is like saying there was a secondary mutation to take care of it. Which brings me back to my original statement, that the organ is irreducible complex since it would have to rely on multiple mutations at once. Similar arguments can be made for all other steps, as well as for other organs and organelles. But more importantly, not only does common descent speculate that an organ like the eye evolved naturally against all odds, it also speculates that this unlikely event occurred multiple times for multiple species! The mollusc for example, are speculated to be from a different branch as the insects; so the evolution of molluscs eyes cannot be used to account for insect eyes, which are a lot more complex by the way. The same goes for other species like mammals; who allegedly formed eyes completely independently.

​

And we can find irreducible complexity at yet an even larger scale when considering abilities of species. Certain abilities, like flying, breathing underwater, breathing above water, digesting, reproducing trough cell division, reproducing trough male and female, all these abilities rely on multiple organs, organelles and characteristics. That is to say that some animals, or at least some type of animals like fish, bird, mammals, reptiles,... are irreducibly complex. They requires multiple organs and features to do what they generally do. A single of those features does not have a function, and the ability requires multiple features.
http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm
​

This seems to be a strong argument from the very beginning:

From single-celled to multiple-celled organism.
​

​

Lets pick up where we left of with abiogenesis. Say that for the sake of argument a single-celled self-nourishing and reproducing organism originated. How did it evolve into a multiple-celled organism?

Remember how we talked about most prokaryotes using a very specific enzyme to convert methane out of hydrogen and carbon dioxide in order to harvest energy. Well all prokaryotes (organisms that do have organelles with membrane-boundaries) rely on a different more complex process called the tri-carboxylic acid cycle, or a.k.a. Citric acid cycle. This cycle is a 12-step chemical process. Each step relies on a different enzyme as catalyst, and each step is vital to the chain in order for it to eventually extract raw energy out fats, carbs and proteins. Of course these components need to be broken down by the digestive system first; which is a whole different story altogether. So by what process could one very specific process of energy harvesting evolve into a completely different, complex system? Remember that this is a vital characteristic of life, so an intermediate organism, that isn't able to harvest energy is out of the question. Building a second while the first is still functioning is also very unlikely, since each step wouldn't have any benefits for the organism so it can't rely on survival of the fittest.

http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm

I know this discussion isn't about the 'how'. But since you commented on one aspect of the 'how', I felt it was important to gain an accurate picture.

The last point for this post:

This is standard scientific method, used across all disciplines. TOE attempts to describe nature based on a consistent phylogentic theory. This means that species and characteristics must appear in a certain order chronologically and geographically. Any deviation from this order is potentially fatal for the theory. (ie the theory is falsifiable).

One of the arguments against this is the Cambrian explosion - an era of relatively rapid appearance of entirely new species. I am sure evolutionists present arguments to explain this phenomenon, but these remain debated. It would seem that the fossil record is not as robust as you make it seem.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

The appearance of epithelial-mesenchymal interactions and the origin of the skeletogenic/odontogenic neural crest at the outset of vertebrate evolution provided the developmental basis for the evolutionary origin of vertebrate skeletogenic and odontogenic tissues and for the appearance and evolution of the vertebrate skeleton

Again, like the evolution of the eye, they look at a vertebrae, and extrapolate back, again, they do not take into consideration the brain, nerves, muscles etc that would be needed to make all this work

Maintenance of developmental interactions regulating skeletogenic/odontogenic differentiation across vertebrate taxa. We derive twelve postulates, eight relating to the earliest vertebrate skeletogenic and odontogenic tissues and four relating to the development of these tissues in extant vertebrates and extrapolate the developmental data back to the evolutionary origin of vertebrate skeletogenic and odontogenic tissues. The conclusions that we draw from this analysis are as follows.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1990.tb01427.x/abstract

When they use all these big words in their abstract, it seems to becomes a lot of waffle, because they also throw in words like, inferred, assumed, no clue, interpret, it just does not sound convincing to me.

It might be seen as a good argument by some, but why does mankind need more stuff to argue about, what good does arguing achieve?

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Muhaba]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;



Again, like the evolution of the eye, they look at a vertebrae, and extrapolate back, again, they do not take into consideration the brain, nerves, muscles etc that would be needed to make all this work



When they use all these big words in their abstract, it seems to becomes a lot of waffle, because they also throw in words like, inferred, assumed, no clue, interpret, it just does not sound convincing to me.

It might be seen as a good argument by some, but why does mankind need more stuff to argue about, what good does arguing achieve?

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

They'll believe everything except that God made it happen. Everything else is believable to them except that!!! It is a laugh really, some of the impossible crap they believe in.

I mean one should ask where did the primordial soup come from, where did volcanoes come from, where did lightening come from, where did the various gases come from, and on and on and on. For every effect there is a cause. Nothing happens by itself. Nothing comes into being by itself. The human mind understands this clrealy and well. Those claiming otherwise are suppressing their natural feelings.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

You have often said that God has created a TOE look alike world, but I think God has created greater illusions. What God would create Australia and put it at the bottom of a globe, spin it round like a top, and hurtle it through space. All these poor Australians are under the illusion they are walking the right way up.

God can create in ways that seem wacky and daft to us, why didn't he just create a flat platform for us to live on?

But to create in this way, demands power, And God has that power.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Independent]

Greetings Muhammad

I am surprised to find you taking such an interest in this thread!

You said that ancestral connections were uncertain and it is not part of evolutionary science. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but there seems to be a contradiction here.

To say that one specific species is the direct descendant of another is not usually possible, unless we have some other evidence. This was the mistake made by early taxonomists who placed early hominids etc into neat lines, thus providing Creationist propagandists with material to this day.

Now we realise that there are too many possible branches and sub species. For instance, if we were some future evolved descendent of man looking back at the fossil record of the last 500,000 years, and all we had in our possession was a Neanderthal specimen, we might leap to the conclusion we are descended from Neanderthals. But we're not. There are (at least) two other species we would have missed - Denisovans and ourselves, Homo Sapiens. Homo sapiens wold be our direct ancestor, not Neanderthals.

But we would be able to say something along the lines of 'Neanderthals are of the family of species' from which we were descended. Neanderthals share many key adaptions with homo sapiens and a closely related branch. So they still inform us adequately about the general trend of evolution (almost as well as an actual homo sapiens specimen would have done).

There are still many other examples of irreducible complexity which you did not comment on.

The assault of Creationist polemicists on TOE is unrelenting. They fight every step of the way. It takes time to demolish any particular issue, such as the bacterium flagellum, but if defeated they will always simply shift to a new battleground. I'm doing my best to answer people but if you want to read about each battleground it's beyond me to cover them all. You'll find material out there if you are interested.

As for the principle of irreducible complexity, it's an interesting argument but the name is causing problems. The bacterium flagellum as described by Behe was simply not irreducible. He stated something as a fact, which continues to be repeated today, but's it's wrong. The most you can say about any organ is that it may appear to be irreducibly complex today, but tomorrow we may find that this is not true.

Creationists are claim TOE has been 'proved' wrong by irreducible complexity but this is not correct. Issues of IC is a challenge for TOE, but not (at this point) a refutation.

One of the arguments against this is the Cambrian explosion - an era of relatively rapid appearance of entirely new species. I am sure evolutionists present arguments to explain this phenomenon, but these remain debated. It would seem that the fossil record is not as robust as you make it seem.

Yes, there are many possible explanations for this phenomenon, including whether the term 'explosion' is a reasonable description in the first place for a period covering some 20 million years - unimaginably long for humans. Again, you can research these yourself if you're interested. Soft bodied creatures are rarely fossilised, except in the special conditions of the Cambrian (which is one of many possible reasons for the apparent appearance of many new species - we just couldn't see them before).

As for implications for the fossil record...as I have said, although we have millions of fossils, that still means we are missing perhaps 99% of all species that existed. It's enough to show us the general overall plot, but not the detail. Imagine watching Gone With The Wind playing at 24 frames a second, but you only see one frame every 4 seconds. You going to get the overall gist - peaceful start, a war,some characters disappear, but Scarlett makes it through. You would read it as her story because she makes it through to the end. You will make mistakes, but there some things that are immutable. Characters appear or disappear from the story and will never be found in the period before or after.

 

[Independent]

This is what brother Hulk actually said:

Let's run through this again. There are some extinct creatures known as Neanderthals that Creationists need to explain. A key question that needs to be answered is: are they human or apes? You say they're humans. Hulk, based on the Qur'an, suggests they are apes (or to be exact, men turned into apes but not by evolution). Which is it to be? If you're right, he's wrong.

 

[Independent]

My question is: What 'missing links' are you actually referring to?

Please make mention of these with full references.

Once again I repeat, the term 'missing link' has no scientific value, it's just a popular phrase. If you want to amuse yourself with lists of species that were considered 'missing' from the fossil record in Darwin's day but have since been found, there are plenty to be found on the internet, I've got nothing to add.

A much better term than 'missing link' might be 'landmark species' - ie the first known species to exhibit a particular key characteristic such as bipedalism, the eye, bones etc.

 

[Independent]

Another false claim:

From what I can see, Dr Rubin, is not significantly diverging from the consensus view, as updated with the benefit of the very latest research over the last few months. But I'm not spending time hunting out everything one man has said.

You need to realise that Rubin is specifically addressing a particular question, which is the long standing issue of how Neanderthals disappeared. Based on genome evidence, he is ruling out the old theory that they were simply swallowed up - literally bred out of existence - by interbreeding with more numerous homo sapiens:

“While unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur, analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level.” (Rubin).

So he does not rule out interbreeding. He does say it could only have been low level (the consensus view) and could not have accounted for their disappearance (also now the consensus view). No one thinks it was widespread any more because otherwise there would be far more genetic overlap. However, ANY overlap tells us that interbreeding was at least occasionally possible, which is the key issue from a species/evolutionary point of view and for the debate in this thread.

 

[جوري]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

You have often said that God has created a TOE look alike world, but I think God has created greater illusions. What God would create Australia and put it at the bottom of a globe, spin it round like a top, and hurtle it through space. All these poor Australians are under the illusion they are walking the right way up.

God can create in ways that seem wacky and daft to us, why didn't he just create a flat platform for us to live on?

But to create in this way, demands power, And God has that power.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

the words aren't big nor a jargon it's like describing a histology slide but again it's all it does- poor fellow for all his digging indeed desires that his audience drown in 'jargon' but all he does is showcase his complete lack of understanding of what it means to demonstrate a mechanism of action by which development occurred in this case it's embryological and as you stated looks at it in isolation the body doesn't develop in isolation and he's yet to demonstrate that from unicellular to complex being with reticular function - I am sure you like the rest of us are looking forward to 20 more pages of dazzling utter nonsense!

 

[Independent]

Interestingly, apes of today have chosen not to continue this 'divergence' to evolve into humans. Forget about not being able to find fossils that show evolving species......we are not even able to witness this phenomenon today, even though we have our supposed ancestors in our midst.

It's this kind of comment that shows that you haven't understood a thing about how TOE is supposed to work. How can you hope to make meaningful criticisms of something you comprehensively fail to understand? The idea that apes are somehow failing to complete their destiny to morph into humans is laughable and utterly inconsistent with TOE. Apes are fully adapted for their environment, we are for ours. Unfortunately for the apes their environment isn't going to last much longer, but that's another matter.

 

[Independent]

What God would create Australia and put it at the bottom of a globe,

To be fair, it's man who put Australia at the bottom - or more precisely it was men like Mercator who put his map out first. It's like, why does the east-west meridian go through Greenwich rather than, say, Paris - it's a man made convention, but for convenience we all agree on it.

 

[Independent]

because they also throw in words like, inferred, assumed, no clue, interpret, it just does not sound convincing to me.

It's the typical language of science in general, they are being properly conservative in their statements. How much trouble has been caused by the word 'theory' in Theory of Evolution! It's just a scientific term for a hypothesis designed to account for data, like the Theory of Gravity. Yet even today you still get Creationists announcing ah-hah! It's just a theory! As if Darwin never noticed!

 

[Independent]

Not only was the Piltdown Man a hoax, but in fact many others as well.

I've always liked the Piltdown Man story, it's one of those wonderful bits of history that add colour to this world. What a pity it's been politicised by Creationists into a ridiculous secular conspiracy theory. It's irrelevant to TOE today but since you've raised it yet again I'll waste some more time on it.

The probable perpertrator was the man who found the 'fossil' - Charles Dawson. If so, he was acting for reasons of personal ambition, nothing more sinister than that. In fact Piltdown Man disrupted scientific progress for some years and subsequently caused genuine finds of Australopithcine fossils to be unnecessarily distrusted. And of course, the fraud was unmasked by evolutionists, not Creationists.

Looking at some of the other pictures in your illustration I see Peking Man. The text says: 'Supposedly 500,000 years old but all evidence has disappeared.' This seems to be based on the views of creationists Duane Gish and Malcolm Bowden. Along with Java Man, Peking Man was one of the first homo erectus fossils to be discovered. Earlier Creationists tried to discredit the discovery by saying it was all too convenient that it had disappeared (en route to the US in 1941) leaving only the plaster casts to examine. Basically, they suggested that it was a fake and there was no such thing as homo erectus.

in the next few decades many more similar fossils were found, matching Perking Man and entirely vindicating its authenticity. Needless to say the relevant Creationists never apologised for their destructive personal attacks. For the most part, today's generation of Creationists have seamlessly switched their story to say homo erectus is real but human (even though they shamelessly say their story is unchanging while science is not).

You need to stop pasting that diagram, it's out of date and malicious.

 

[Muhaba]

I guess I won't get a response to my criticism, ignored as before.

TOE has so many holes in it that you try to wrap one and so many others appear. it's not a practical explanation. it cannot work practically. only theoretically (in the mind of the evolutionist and ignorant individuals) but not a working model!

For example, you assume (and it has been shown that TOE is all about assumptions with many 'ifs' appearing here and there), so you assume that the apelike creature that was your forefather had a mutation that changed some part of his body and made it more homosapien-like, let's say changed his femur so his gait would be more human-like or changed his hand structure to be more like human (one of those two, since there can be only small single-step mutations bit by bit, from what I understood of theory of natural selection). Now when this creature (your forefather, Independent, since you believe you've descended from such) mated and had a child, said mutation would be recessive and a minority and there would be no reason for it to appear in future generations. Now when those children grow up and mate with other apelike creatures, the genes for said mutation become even more recessive because everyone else has the normal apelike creature genes and not the mutated gene. So eventually, the mutation is eliminated all-together! There is no reason why the mutation should be dominant and appear in every child of the mutated creature and fill entire populations while all the original creatures should die out and get extinct.

unless you assume that a cold wind or some other factor caused all existing members of a specie to simultaneously mutate and then continue to mutate with every generation until the change was complete, a highly unlikely scenario!

 

[جوري]

Why weren't the apes fully adapted then? What's in the environment that is ok now for them not to adapt but wasn't then? You know before you go accusing members of all the things wrong with you?

 

[observer]

Why weren't the apes fully adapted then? What's in the environment that is ok now for them not to adapt but wasn't then? You know before you go accusing members of all the things wrong with you?

Environments are constantly changing. Therefore, animals must change to adapt. It's that simple.

Look at giraffes - a pretty simple example. Giraffes eat leaves. As the leaves lower down trees in a certain environment are eaten, those with longer necks have access to leaves higher up. They thrive whilst shorter necked giraffes struggle. The long necked animal reproduces. It passes on its long-necked trait to its offspring. And so on.

Why would an ape living in the forest now need to evolve into a human? It just makes no sense and bears no relation to what TOE says.

 

[جوري]

Therefore, animals must change to adapt. It's that simple

again, adaptation isn't speciation, do you not know the difference?
btw, you should answer the Q's posed you earlier, not show your face with such meek replies later which aren't even in concert with the overall theme!

best,