Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

[Esquilax]

Darwin's book is titled "The Origin of Species" In it Darwin tried to explain where all the species in the world came from. His thesis was not dogs produce dogs. His thesis was all dogs come from some species way back in time that were not dogs through evolution.

So, have you read the book in question?

Let's get educational, and talk about what's actually in Darwin's work, shall we? So, you're aware of the concept of mutations, right? And you know that each successive generation of organisms is slightly different from any other due to mutations? That's how dog breeding works, incidentally.

So, generation over generation, organisms become subtly different from the ones that came before; you don't look exactly like your father, and you look even less like your grandfather, and his father, and his father, and so on. This is simply fact.

Your contention is that no matter how many little changes add up, they'll never become accumulate into bigger changes, and that's just absurd. Furthermore, since each of those mutations will only be small, you wouldn't be able to draw a line down the middle of the lineage and say that there is the point that it stops being one animal and starts being a modern day dog.

Do you understand?

Creationists dispute that.

They can dispute whatever they want; what I care about is evidence.

Creationists do not dispute dog breeding.

If you are saying that you are only claiming dog breeding as evolution, then you are a creationist.

Dog breeding is evolution happening live, just with artificial selection taking the place of natural selection.

The evolutionist world disagrees with you.

No, actually they wouldn't; for example, did you know that the ancestors of modern day whales are actually ungulates that returned to the ocean and developed flippers again?

Chimps and man do not have a common ancestor. Did anyone actually see that happen? Or is it just a conclusion from assumptions.

Your assumption is not evidence.

So, first of all, did you see god creating everything? If not, then I guess it didn't happen, according to your logic.

Second of all, I did see the common ancestor of man and chimp. I was there. Prove me wrong: were you there to see if I was? And if you can't prove me wrong, then clearly the opposite, me being right, is correct.

Third of all, you seem to be ignoring the links to evidence of this precise thing, both in genetics and the fossil record, that I posed to you last night. How interesting...