The evidence is the fact that "microevolution" is true. Given time, there is no mechanism that prevents the mutations from stacking up.

Besides it automatically reversing, your right.

I'll let Britton take over this one. [spoiler]I apologize for whatever he does. Lol[/spoiler]

Okay...? He's no one new.

Gene frequency isn't a reversal.

The odds of original parent genetics are as impossible as recreating the flakes of snow. When we are talking about the genetics of a possible new function, they either reverse, it's own species denies the organism, or the organism itself develops a "function" to act as a catalyst for the organism's own demise.

Citation needed*

Proof? Evolution has developed no new species.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ Sure it hasn't.

(1) Big read. That took a lot of my time. (2) It still didn't disprove what I stated previously. The straw man is still plausible since naturally, nature hasn't developed no species, even through speciation. Only variants have manifested. I must frequently remind detractors of Christianity that I do not deny that species vary, change, and are even discovered over time. The biodiversity represented in the 8.7 million species present in the world is a testament to the fact, but [b]it isn't by the random processes of chance that they develop but to the genetic variability and potential for diversification within the already present kinds[/b] (when not taking into account the effect of environmental hazards affecting the organism's biology). Continuing the argument as to how I feel concerning speciation may actually feel in vain due to the fact that my encounters with atheistic "scientists" have taught me that they may enthusiastically or stubbornly cling to anything as long as "God" isn't the "reasonable" conclusion (even though logically, he fulfills all paradoxes, even to the question as to why anything should exist or possess a cause). For example: On April 20, 2010, it was reported that there was a group of scientists who took to studying the Anolis roquet, a lizard residing on the island of Martinique (http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2010/04/island-reptiles-buck-evolutionary-trend). Unfortunately for our Darwin lobbyists, the study revealed opposing data against the the "scientist's" mainstream hypothesis. Originally in their thinking, they assumed that one of the best ways to split a species naturally is through allopatric speciation, which is when some sort of physical barrier separates a group of organisms from the same species' population, causing them to eventually become so genetically distinct that they can no longer interbreed. However, the lizards in the study showed no apparent speciation or evidence of this science in the last acclaimed eight million years of their assumed existence. According to the team, who were led by Bangor University evolutionary biologist Roger Thorpe, stated that the results "...really surprised..." him, and that they had expected greater genetic divergence because of the isolation, but the reptiles, unfortunately, showed that the lizards diverged too little to become separate species. Despite the evidence that was literally unquestionable and present, they reported that the lizards may be in the process of speciation today without no basis to conclude the statement except the thinking "Hmm, there's no evidence of speciation...so the lizards must be in the process of forming evidence for speciation," even though the study completely exhibited that the different lizard populations that were split into different habitats on the island only resulted with the minuet or no chance of their kind interbreeding (even when beforehand, his team concluded that the island was in assumed isolation for eight million years). This sort of attitude amazed me. Even out of the evidence that was reported, the bias reasoning resonated completely through their logic.

The lizards in that experiment underwent physical changes to their digestive systems based on the food available in the islands. Which is conclusive with predictions that the separation would cause unique changes due to natural selection. This whole "same kinds" argument is a flawed one. A "kind" isnt a scientific classification at all. You say kinds don't change, yet kind is a made up term. I can make "kind" mean whatever I want. It could mean mammals, vertebrates, all warm blooded organisms, a specific species, etc. So if I said land mammals evolved to whales, and you say no because the kind changed, I can say the kind stayed the same because whales are still vertebrate, warm blooded, mammals. In that link it notes several observed speciation events, so unless you want to argue that evolution says birds turn into fish and undermine any credibility you have at all, your argument is false. Your argument that since you have an unknown, and God can fill that unkown, it must be God, is literally God of the gaps.

[quote]The lizards in that experiment underwent physical changes to their digestive systems based on the food available in the islands.[/quote]That isn't any evidence to assume that there is any physical distinction of a new species. Yay for reading.[quote]...which is conclusive with [the] predictions that the separation would cause unique changes due to natural selection.[/quote]Remember Darwin's finches? The diet, or more so separation, that they had affected the appearance of their beaks, an outside manipulation. And you conclude that if the speciation isn't visible, it must be internal? That isn't the definition of speciation.[quote]This whole "same kinds" argument is a flawed one. A "kind" isn't a scientific classification at all. You say kinds don't change, yet kind is a made up term.[/quote]Fine. You want me to give an accurate easy translation for you? Family. There...I said it. If you are even as smart as you claim to be, you would have realized that the surrounding context clues would have alluded to the fact. Thank you for going off subject and proceeding to talk about the etymology of "kind."[quote]I can make "kind" mean whatever I want.[/quote]Make "kind" logically mean a car, and I'll believe you.[quote]It could mean mammals, vertebrates, all warm blooded organisms, a specific species, etc.[/quote]Atheist states an array of interpretations without having any basis as to what deceptively helped him conclude the thinking.[quote]So if I said land mammals evolved to whales, and you say, "No because the kind changed," I can say, "The kind stayed the same because whales are still vertebrate, warm blooded mammals."[/quote]...but now you have to convince me that the original translation of "kind" must mean "vertebrate animals." So far...you have shown no pseudo-logic as to why that may be.[quote]...so unless you want to argue that evolution says birds turn into fish and undermine any credibility you have at all, your argument is false.[/quote]Speciation is the alleged process by which evolutionists claim that we form new species. Under that denotation, what the lizards exhibited wasn't speciation.[quote]You're argument [is] that since you have an unknown, and God can fill that unkown, it must be God...[/quote]...because having an infinite cause satisfies the reasoning as to why would anything would even need to exist, as to why we have these sudden jumps in obviously differentiated species without even the fossilized anatomy of missing links over the time frame an acclaimed billion year Earth, as to why intelligence of humans far exceeds the smartest care-free creature, and as to how organic organisms can manifest from non-organic material.