Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[John V]

I love it when theists bluster in here as though to disprove my claims, only to end up inadvertently demonstrating them to be correct: it's clear your understanding of evolution is lacking, here.

Genetic changes, which comprise the entirety of evolution, are random, and observably do produce "new" things, regardless of whether those new changes are advantageous or not. For example, there's a type of three toed skink in New South Wales that is evolving the ability to birth live young, something the skinks have never been able to do before.

What is that, if not new?

Feel free to support that.

As to accumulation, should the blue eye genes prove to be an advantageous trait, such that they allow the next generation to breed more, then the propensity for blue eyes will become more entrenched in the next generation simply due to the propagation of blue eyed genes.

Maybe, maybe not.

That's accumulation of blue eyes amongst the population, but it's also worth mentioning that there's rarely only one change occurring at a time. Say the blue eyed generation had a subset that had larger eyes that were able to breed more, and within that subset there was a further subset that had a slightly different shape to their teeth, and so on and so forth. Assuming those traits remained stably advantageous so that they continue to propagate via sheer numbers, in the end you'd have a population that had much larger, exclusively blue eyes with differently shaped teeth and whatever else happened to be positive in their genetic mutations, and yet you're saying that that population wouldn't be a new species no matter how many changes occur?

First, I said I don't accept macroevolution because I haven't seen compelling scientific evidence. This isn't compelling scientific evidence.

Second, you give a straight-line scenario, yet below acknowledge that changes don't go solidly in one direction.