How do you know God isn't dead?

[Statler Waldorf]

No, no you fucking well didn't.

How do you know that?

Evolution 101
or "how a human does not come from a non-human"

This should be very interesting.

---

I'm going to give you an example of how evolution works, in broad strokes, and I'll probably cram into one or two generations what, in reality occurs over some 10 or 20... and I'm not going to use humans as basis for it, given that they're too complex and the evolutionary edge that sparks an evolution towards that goal is very spread out over many traits, making the argument very complex and you would easily get lost in details.

---

I would have preferred that you stuck with Humans as your example.

---

For some reason (freak storm, or whatever) a sample of these birds arrives at another island, Y, where their beaks are not very well suited to feed themselves, but still manage the job.
So A survives barely and breeds.
At some point, one offspring of an individual A, is born with a slightly larger beak, say, 1mm longer. Let's call this A1.
A1 can breed with A. Given the better suitability of this larger beak, A1 can feed itself slightly better than the rest, so it survives and manages to breed, as if it was a member of A.
A1 breeds with an A mate.
Their offspring will be majorly A and a few A1s.
Over a few generations, you have a few A1s running alongside As.
Eventually, A1s breed with A1s, producing more As, A1s and another bird with a yet slightly larger beak, 2mm longer, let's call it A2.
A2 can breed with A1s and As.
Interbreeding yields As, A1s and a few A2s.
Eventually, we get another bird with slightly longer beak, 3mm, let's call it A3. A3 can still breed with A, A1 and A2.

With each increment in beak size, the species becomes more proficient at feeding in island Y and so these new generations become dominant, due to their better feeding, they are healthier, survive longer, look better, mate easier.
As become less favorable to mate with and decline in numbers, even if they may mate with A3s. A1s and A2s merely prefer to mate with A3s or A2s, instead of As or A1s.
In time, A5 appears in island Y. A5 can still breed with any of the previous As, but will prefer A4s or A5s.
As and A1s become rare, although As still thrive in island X.

Eventually, you get A10s which are perfectly suited for life in island Y, but, while they can mate with A5s, they will not mate with As.
By now, A10 is a different species from A, lets call them something different, B, but A5 can mate with both.
However, in island Y, all these A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 will tend to become superseded by the A10 and A9 and will quickly recede.

When Darwin comes along, all he sees is As in island X and A10s (or B) is island Y. Two different species, similar, yet unable to breed among themselves.

---

Yes, the finch beak example has been around for nearly 200 years; however it doesn’t really address my question because they are all still finches. The example is also far too optimal to apply to primates, primates very rarely become genetically isolated like island dwelling birds do. Not only this but the genetic information for the different beak sizes is already present and merely being selected upon to produce the differences. How does variation in beak sizes and shapes prevent A10 from being able to produce fertile offspring with A and A1? You lost me there.
I want to know when and how the very first Human appeared, Evolutionists put a date on it (4 million years ago or so) so they must believe that there was a very first Human being and that something that was not a modern Human being gave birth to it. I am fascinated by that claim because it’s not supported by anything we observe in Nature. Changing the expression of a particular phenotype hardly seems like actual Evolution, we see differences in bone structure and muscular structure between different races of people but I for one do not believe any of them are more evolved than the others. It seems like Evolutionists are invoking a bit of a bait and switch here, or possibly even the fallacy of extrapolation. They show us something that even Creationists agree happens and have no issues with, such as variations between finch bird beaks that can sometimes even lead to speciation and they say, “See! That’s how we know that all life on Earth has a common ancestor!” Seems to me they have jumped about a million steps in between their evidence and their conclusion about the evidence.