Evolution

Note: This argument will be short due to technical difficulties and computer crashes"If it currently or used to be able to reproduce it is the same kind. For example zebras and horses are the same kind because the can reproduce. So yes there is a good way to scientifically determine if two sorts of animals are of the same kind. Another good example are human races. We are all equally human (contrary to what evolution tells us), but there are different characteristics such as height,skin color,eye color...etc within the human kind. We are all of the same kind because despite minor differences between races, two humans can still reproduce offspring healthy offspring."Except that the speciation examples I gave either could not breed with the original species, or could but produced sterile offspring, proving that these were between kinds as you define them. In fact, you used the normal definition of species to define kind, instead of using the regular creationist definition of a kind, proving that the examples of speciation I gave were between kinds as you defined them. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)Evolution does not state that about humans. This proves that macroevolution has happened.1. BreathingAmerican alligators have no air sacs. (http://www.sciencemag.org...)2. The Archaeopteryx actually has a lot of dinosaur like features, according to a 2011 study. (http://www.nature.com...)3. Con ignores the fact that it's not reptile-like mammals: An entire, complete timeline of how reptile jaws turned into mammalian jaws and earbones has been found and confirmed. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)What if mammal-like reptiles never existed? Would evolutionary theory be crippled? Certainly not. Evolutionary theory is so plastic that any series of observations in the natural world could be cited in its favor! No. Instead, evolutionary theory changes to accomodate new observations all the time to make sure that it is accurate." Any other so called transitional fossils are dinosaurs that ‘scientists’ assumed had proto feathers because they confused collagen fibers with these nonexistent proto feathers."Creationists have agreed that the archaeopteryx had feathers. Also, it was proven that the hairlines of the archaeopteryx was not a forgery. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu...)" The example of the Antarctic Notothenioids is not a case of genetic information being added. It was difficult to get information on this research because it is fairly new and the scientific community hasn’t had the time to add on to this work nor have they had the time to properly state any criticism on the topic. Assuming that the article is 100% accurate, the hypothesis of evolution still can’t scientifically explain how all the genetic information that is needed to make a human was added over millions of years of evolution. Even if some genes can find new purposes that is not adding information. That is merely adjusting information that is already there. For example if you took an original word ‘macroevolution’ and rearranged it to ‘revolution camo’ you would have new meaning, but it wouldn’t become the complete works of Shakespeare over millions of years! 1, 3, and 4 are self-explanatory: information lost or rearranged through mutations." "Novel" does not mean lost information. Proof that there are transitional fossils and not just fully ape or fully man fakes 1. The Australopithecus afarensis was almost ape, but was bipedal and had teeth that were human-like, but not completely human-like 2. The Australopithecus africanus had a slightly larger brain size than apes, but way smaller than humans 3. Homo habilis was just like the above, but with a larger brain size than the africanus but smaller than modern humans, the brain size was in the middle, proving that it ws not a mismatch or a full ape/man 4. A Homo sapiens fossil that looked like it was between the old fossils and modern ones was found 5. A fossil with the features of both modern man and neanderthals has been found (http://www.talkorigins.org...)