When asked for evidence of Evolution, Evolutionists often cite examples of speciation. Most commonly, they point to things like different varieties of dogs. However, this is insufficient to prove Evolution. While Evolutionists have recently taken to defining Evolution as "change over time", this is a very vague and weak definition of Evolution. Creationists already believe in change over time. As a matter of fact, Creationists like Carl Linnaeus and Edward Blyth wrote about change within species before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. There is even sufficient evidence that Darwin may have stolen some of Blyth's work, his hand-written notes still being in the margins of copies of Blyth's articles. So, not only do Creationists believe in change over time, we got there first!
Evidently, therefore, Evolution is more than just change over time. Otherwise, Creationists and Evolutionists would have no dispute. In reality, it is not the amount of change that is in dispute, but the type. In the Bible, God created living organisms to reproduce according to their kinds. Carl Linnaeus is credited with founding the field of taxonomy. That is, the current system of classifying living organisms. There are several layers to this: Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. On this scale, it is not entirely clear where "kind" is (and in fact, kind does not perfectly fit this system at all). The only real clue God gave us is that the animals that are able to reproduce are the same kind. Generally speaking, however, it seems that it hovers around the genus/family area.
Why is all this important? It's important because unlike Creationists, who will never tell you that anything above order (at the absolute extreme) on the Linnaean system is related, Evolutionists believe all living organisms are related by one single common ancestor; a single celled organism that magically created itself. From the diagram in today's image, most people not absolutely committed to Evolution will see the problem by now. It's very easy to say that dogs are related. Not only have they been observed to diversify into different breeds, but they are all fundamentally the same creature. But what about humans and fish? Humans allegedly evolved from fish, and according to PZ Myers, we still are fish, yet it doesn't take a biology degree to see that humans and fish are fundamentally different creatures. Therefore, it is not the amount of change that is in dispute, but the type. You cannot prove Evolution by proving speciation because the former does not necessarily, or even logically follow from the latter.
The fact that Evolutionists always give speciation as evidence of Evolution speaks volumes about the state of their religion. They want you to believe fish are related to humans, but cannot prove it. The reason they want Evolution to have a free ride on the back of speciation is because without that free ride, it has no ride. Evolution has no legs. And because it really rather needs the legs it doesn't have, it does not survive to reproduce. Therefore, we can naturally select against Evolution.
Comments