The Idea that Small changes in Species leads to Large Radical Changes is NOT proved

I E-coli The E. coli experiment is a classic case that proves my point that these small changes never amount to any radically large changes so that a creature becomes a significantly different kind of animal, such as an ape becoming a man. After 26 years of mutation and 60 000 generations, the E-coli bacteria were still E-coli bacteria. They merely learnt a new trick, how to ingest citrate, which seems no different from a dog learning to roll over, but it will still be a dog. I saw a contortionist put his body into positions most people can"t, I don"t know how he learnt this, but it doesn"t prove he"s becoming anything other than human. Yes, a dog can adapt to its environment, but this doesn"t show the dog can cease to be a dog, or that his descendants eventually will. The experimental observations show that bacteria remain bacteria despite the minor variations that occur. II. The peppered moth So moths tend to have wings with different colors, so what? I"ve seen a pair of black cats give birth to white and brown kittens. Does this show that each of their kittens was somehow less of a cat than their parents? My brown dog gave birth to white puppies, are they somehow less of a dog? Nobody thinks this is proof that cats are becoming anything other than cats, or that dogs are becoming anything other than dogs. Humans come in many colors, so do cats and dogs, so do peppered moths, but this variation is no evidence that moths will one day no longer be moths. This variety is too weak to be proof of evolution in the sense that a moth can becoming anything other than a moth given enough time. It seems that since after so many generations, the moths were still moths, the most logical conclusion is that just as an elastic band can stretch and bend into different shapes but remains and elastic band, there are limits to variation that occurs among animals so that at the core, these animals remain what they are. Its just wishful thinking to assume that though we don"t see any massive changes in the descendents, given enough time we would. A worm becomes a butterfly in day or two. Why then should evolution take millions of years? This isn"t science, its speculation. III. Useless body parts The plantaris functions as a kinesiological monitor, providing crucial proprioceptive information to the central nervous system. (Peck, D., Buxton D.F. and Nitz, A., A comparison of spindle concentrations in large and small muscles acting in parallel combinations, J. Morphology 180:243"252, 1984; Peck, D., Buxton D.F. and Nitz, A., A proposed mechanoreceptor role for the small redundant muscles which act in parallel with large primemovers; in: Hinick, P., Soukup, T., Vejsada, R. and Zelena J. (eds.), Mechanoreceptors: Structure and Function, Plenum Press, London, pp. 377"382, 1988) "Plantaris may also provide proprioceptive feedback information to the central nervous system regarding the position of the foot. The unusually high density of proprioceptive receptor end organs supports this notion." http://www.google.com... So the plantaris isn"t useless, it does have a function; and just because its not a necessary component of our anatomy doesn"t mean its not a useful one. Furthermore, Con is confusing organs which have currently unknown uses, with organs having no uses at all. Its simply his blind assumption that because scientists don"t see a great use for this organ, it therefore has none! Obviously, not much research into the biochemistry of an organ will be done if its just assumed to be useless. We may yet discover many other uses for the plantaris. For examples, just look at how much so-called junk-DNA thought by evolutionists to be useless turned out to be functional after all when more research was done! "Indeed, the vast majority of human DNA seems to be involved in maintaining individuals" well being " a view radically at odds with what biologists have thought for the past three decades"The project"s chief discovery is the identification of about 4 million sites involved in regulating gene activity. Previously, only a few thousand such sites were known. In all, at least 80 percent of the genome appears to be active at least sometime in our lives. Further research may reveal that virtually all of the DNA passed down from generation to generation has been kept for a reason. "This concept of "junk DNA" is really not accurate. It is an outdated metaphor," said Richard Myers of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology in Alabama. Myers is one of the leaders of the project, involving more than 400 scientists at 32 institutions." http://www.washingtonpost.com... Just as it was only a matter of time before they found out the uses for the junk-DNA, could it not just be a matter of time before we know more about the plantaris? It just seems like evolutionists let their egos get in the way, and assume that if they don"t know the function for something at the time, there therefore is no function. We are not gods, and don"t know everything. Something we will never know. Notice the same thing is happening now with the appendix that Con also assumes too hastily is useless. "The function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria populating the human digestive system, according to the study in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. There are more bacteria than human cells in the typical body. Most of it is good and helps digest food".But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix"s job is to reboot the digestive system in that case." http://www.nbcnews.com... Nature is blind. It"s not intelligent. Mutations are random, and its only share luck when you get a beneficial mutation to be passed along to the next generation. Now evolutionists expect us to believe that the appendix evolve more than 30 times in more than 30 separate kinds of animals? http://www.google.com... What are the chances of that happening? It seems more likely that these animals were created with an appendix, than that just by sheer lucky chance they all managed to evolve the exact same appendage. IV. Con's Conclusion Con"s appeal to what the majority of scientists say is simply an argument that truth is decided by majority vote. When new discoveries in science throw cold water on the old theories of the majority, what does that do to Con"s position? The majority thought the appendix had no function and were obviously wrong. Con"s argument is that because humans have body parts we don"t use, this proves we are becoming, what, ET? Again, none of these small changes proves that they compile into the large scale changes claimed by macroevolution. So the humans who are born without a plantaris, are they any more or less human than the rest of us? No! Variation within a kind is no evidence that monkeys become men. You"ll need to try again, Con. V. Time and Evolution Now evolutionists claim they need millions of years for macroevolution to happen. Lenski"s E-coli experiment used bacteria which reproduces quickly and has huge populations. They can also sustain higher mutation rates than organisms with much larger genomes like ours. Since the life-span of bacteria is very short, we should be able to see in this experiment, given evolutionary assumptions, lots of evolution happen in real time (instead of imagining it all happening in the unobservable past). With the short generation times, Lenski got 60 000 generations, equivalent to more than 1.5 million years of generations of a human population (but the evolutionary opportunities for humans would be far, far less, due to the small population numbers limiting the number of mutational possibilities; and the much larger genome, which cannot sustain a similar mutation rate without error or extinction by catastrophe). Since evolutionist claims that in 1.5 million years we evolved from an apelike creature to human beings, since they claim such radical changes occurred in mammals, they should have seen even more radical changes in the E-coli bacteria. These should be more likely to evolve than we are, for bacteria is more adaptable to different environments than most living things. This is why they are found in almost all environments known to man. And yet, the E-coli were nothing radically different at the end of all those mutations. Clear evidence evolution just isn"t happening. No, there is no evidence that proves this theory. I look forward to Con's rebuttal.