People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"there is no evidence for macro-evolution"

Shameless liar.

Well all you have to do is present it, Fun Baggs!

Let's go! We're all waiting... where is the evidence?

I do not have to present anything to a two-bit charlatan. I am quite satisfied with the state and view of the scientific community on the matter. Your cheap imitation of a roadside sermon has no bearing on any of it. I will not be debating any flat-earthers anytime soon, either. But i will ridicule them and call them liars, when they act stupid and lie.

 

[Avatar4321]

The finches are a great example of micro-evolution. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. Finches didn't evolve into ducks or seagulls.

You are incorrect, they are considered separate species, at least by biologists. They have different genes and don't interbreed allowing the differences to be inherited by subsequent generations.

But no frogs become say lizards? Just finches becoming different finches

Sorry but the world/science doesn't confirm to your expectaions. How many changes must there be before you say the finches are no longer finches?

When they no longer are finches. It's hard to argue that a finch isn't a finch. Especially when even the scientific community calls them finches.

And btw it's not my expectation that's the issue. It's the theory of evolution that states that one create evolves into another creature. How exactly can this be true if science and reality don't confirm to those expectations?

You can't have it both ways. Either animals evolve into different animals or science and reality don't confirm to those expectations.

 

[BreezeWood]

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

I don't want to miss it if you do. It would be absolutely fascinating

There is abundant evidence. One classic is Darwin's finches:

Darwin's finches are a classical example of an adaptive radiation. Their common ancestor arrived on the Galapagos about two million years ago. During the time that has passed the Darwin's finches have evolved into 15 recognized species differing in body size, beak shape, song and feeding behaviour.

.

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

Darwin's finches are a classical example of an adaptive radiation. Their common ancestor arrived on the Galapagos about two million years ago.

the occurrence is found in the earliest period of diversified speciation, the finch long before arriving at the Galapagos island, the distinction that created the precursor to the original finch at the beginning of evolution from the primordial template where the change was metamorphic, directed by the metaphysical presence of that being by a single step from one generation to the next.

The change between species was metamorphic? In what universe? By what hypothesis? By what evidence?

.

The change between species was metamorphic? In what universe? By what hypothesis? By what evidence?

a form of metamorphosis where the metaphysical is similarly present.


the evidence is the present day occurrence by insects that is observable in real time of a process reflecting the ability of a being to change from one state to another.

the evolution of species from the initial template at the beginning of evolution by example of metamorphosis is what caused the diversification of life present throughout time to the present day.

for this forum, genesis proclaims a distinction for humanity than the initial template all beings emerged from, there is no proof for such an assertion is the point being made in regards to the creationist point of view and their made up dilemma for the diversity of life on this planet. all beings in Garden Earth have a similar origin.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The finches are a great example of micro-evolution. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. Finches didn't evolve into ducks or seagulls.

You are incorrect, they are considered separate species, at least by biologists. They have different genes and don't interbreed allowing the differences to be inherited by subsequent generations.

But no frogs become say lizards? Just finches becoming different finches

Sorry but the world/science doesn't confirm to your expectaions. How many changes must there be before you say the finches are no longer finches?

When they no longer are finches. It's hard to argue that a finch isn't a finch. Especially when even the scientific community calls them finches.

And btw it's not my expectation that's the issue. It's the theory of evolution that states that one create evolves into another creature. How exactly can this be true if science and reality don't confirm to those expectations?

You can't have it both ways. Either animals evolve into different animals or science and reality don't confirm to those expectations.

"When they no longer are finches. I"


An absurd demand, and contrived only for the sake of creating an impossible standard. As we all know (well, apparently, maybe not you), that change would take at least an amount of time on the order of many human lifetimes, and likely in the range of 10s of 1000s of years, at a minimum. So, to demand that we directly witness, with our eyeballs,speciation (which we actually have done, oops, you deniers always forget) , or at least the type of speciation you are implying, is an utterly absurd demand.

It is also completely unscientific and, frankly, borderline retarded to hold any scientific theory to the standard of "eyewitness accounts". eyewitness accounts are not only not necessary to provide evidence, they are actually the most unreliable kind of evidence. We don't need to travel to the center of a star to know that fusion is occurring there. we don't have to travel back in time to know the earth formed 4.54 billion years ago. This is all contrived bullshit on the part of you deniers, and not a standard you always employ, and then you wonder why any serious person laughs you out of the room.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

I don't want to miss it if you do. It would be absolutely fascinating

There is abundant evidence. One classic is Darwin's finches:

Darwin's finches are a classical example of an adaptive radiation. Their common ancestor arrived on the Galapagos about two million years ago. During the time that has passed the Darwin's finches have evolved into 15 recognized species differing in body size, beak shape, song and feeding behaviour.

.

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

Darwin's finches are a classical example of an adaptive radiation. Their common ancestor arrived on the Galapagos about two million years ago.

the occurrence is found in the earliest period of diversified speciation, the finch long before arriving at the Galapagos island, the distinction that created the precursor to the original finch at the beginning of evolution from the primordial template where the change was metamorphic, directed by the metaphysical presence of that being by a single step from one generation to the next.

The change between species was metamorphic? In what universe? By what hypothesis? By what evidence?

.

The change between species was metamorphic? In what universe? By what hypothesis? By what evidence?

a form of metamorphosis where the metaphysical is similarly present.


the evidence is the present day occurrence by insects that is observable in real time of a process reflecting the ability of a being to change from one state to another.

the evolution of species from the initial template at the beginning of evolution by example of metamorphosis is what caused the diversification of life present throughout time to the present day.

for this forum, genesis proclaims a distinction for humanity than the initial template all beings emerged from, there is no proof for such an assertion is the point being made in regards to the creationist point of view and their made up dilemma for the diversity of life on this planet. all beings in Garden Earth have a similar origin.

"a form of metamorphosis where the metaphysical is similarly present."

haha, I cannot make heads or tails of this word salad. But, I can say, with 100% certainty, that your definition of "metamorphosis" seems to, itself, 'metamorphose' every time the wind changes direction.

 

[Avatar4321]

"there is no evidence for macro-evolution"

Shameless liar.

We eagerly await the evidence.

What's funny here is i don't even care about evolution. I just dislike when people lie about what is actually proved

 

[RWNJ]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

I can't wait to see people like you stand before God and try to tell Him he doesn't exist. Should be entertaining.

 

[alang1216]

The evolution of life from its beginning through the development of the metazoa (primitive multicellular organisms) took billions of years. The earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen when the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. This reducing environment provided favorable conditions for the natural synthesis of the first organic compounds. The first phospholipid bilayer membranes formed along with primitive RNA and DNA genetic molecules. The membranes adsorbed proteins and the hereditary DNA/RNA material. From these organic molecules, the first primitive prokaryote (simple single cell organism lacking a nucleus) arose. Natural selection began.

Again I have no idea what you're trying to say but at least I understood this pasted snippet, I do think they have it backwards though. It was natural selection that led to prokaryotes. Even bacteria are complex organisms.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"there is no evidence for macro-evolution"

Shameless liar.

We eagerly await the evidence.

What's funny here is i don't even care about evolution. I just dislike when people lie about what is actually proved

"We eagerly await the evidence."

Are you also waiting for the first electric light bulb?

You deniers just do not get it... just because you don't understand something doesn't suddenly make it everyone's job to put it in "just the right way" so that you understand it. Instead, you would rather think that you, who knows less than nothing about this topic, has figured out what decades of dedicated scientists just can't seem to figure out, with their little pea brains. Just the absurdity of that, frankly, makes me very embarrassed for you. the biggest surprise about all of this idiotic denial is that you can do it with a straight face. Clearly, something has lodged itself in your brain, causing you to take leave of your reason. In your case, i will guess religious dogma.

Spare me the "I don't care about evolution" bit. Stupid is as stupid does, and religious nuttery is as religious nuttery does. own your dumb behavior.

 

[Boss]

So Boss, you'll admit that species can evolve into other species but no further? Sounds like a rather arbitrary line.

You really need to work on comprehension skills. This is not about what I "admit" ...as if I am on trial for something. So let's drop the fiduciary jargon and remain focused on context.

Look.... I have ZERO problem accepting ANY kind of evolution, as long as there is evidence to support it. Regardless of whether evolution is micro or macro, it makes no difference with regard to my God and faith in my God. In fact, I would argue that if macro-evoultion is true, it's a profound testament to the amazing power of God to create such a miraculous living organism.

The problem is NOT my belief in God. The problem is your lack of evidence to support your theory. Now.... I can see evidence of micro-evolution. These are mostly small adaptive changes to species over time, resulting in new species. They are almost always related to environment or natural necessity for reproduction through natural selection. BUT.... I see ZERO evidence to support MACRO-evolution, whereby species jump to a completely new genera. If that has happened, we should have plenty of evidence and there is none. Everything you can present is speculative.

So there is no "arbitrary" line, there is a very clear distinction which I have made. My argument hasn't been refuted with evidence and until it is, I am not changing my mind. I understand there are some devout religious believers in science who this rubs the wrong way, but that's just how things are. My acceptance of science relies on evidence.

 

[alang1216]

The finches are a great example of micro-evolution. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. Finches didn't evolve into ducks or seagulls.

You are incorrect, they are considered separate species, at least by biologists. They have different genes and don't interbreed allowing the differences to be inherited by subsequent generations.

But no frogs become say lizards? Just finches becoming different finches

Sorry but the world/science doesn't confirm to your expectaions. How many changes must there be before you say the finches are no longer finches?

When they no longer are finches. It's hard to argue that a finch isn't a finch. Especially when even the scientific community calls them finches.

And btw it's not my expectation that's the issue. It's the theory of evolution that states that one create evolves into another creature. How exactly can this be true if science and reality don't confirm to those expectations?

You can't have it both ways. Either animals evolve into different animals or science and reality don't confirm to those expectations.

Except the scientific community doesn't call them finches, they are members of the Fringillidae family.

Sorry for the typo, the correct phrase was: conform to your expectations. I think faster than I type. Animal species DO evolve into different animal species so science and reality DO conform to those expectations.

 

[BreezeWood]

The evolution of life from its beginning through the development of the metazoa (primitive multicellular organisms) took billions of years. The earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen when the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. This reducing environment provided favorable conditions for the natural synthesis of the first organic compounds. The first phospholipid bilayer membranes formed along with primitive RNA and DNA genetic molecules. The membranes adsorbed proteins and the hereditary DNA/RNA material. From these organic molecules, the first primitive prokaryote (simple single cell organism lacking a nucleus) arose. Natural selection began.

Again I have no idea what you're trying to say but at least I understood this pasted snippet, I do think they have it backwards though. It was natural selection that led to prokaryotes. Even bacteria are complex organisms.

.

Again I have no idea what you're trying to say but at least I understood this pasted snippet, I do think they have it backwards though. It was natural selection that led to prokaryotes. Even bacteria are complex organisms.

From these organic molecules, the first primitive prokaryote (simple single cell organism lacking a nucleus) arose.

no doubt natural selection is the beginning from organic compounds, the template for speciation would be the next step from prokaryotes, single cells with nucleus. or actually the very beginning as well - its a strawman argument creationist use to imply relevancy where non exist.

 

[MarkDuffy]

If one believes in microevolution, then he has admitted to all of evolution.

The IDer argument that while microevolution is true, while macroevolution is false, is merely buying time instead of surrendering to science today.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If one believes in microevolution, then he has admitted to all of evolution.

yes, accurate. And scientists don't like these terms anyway, because they were misappropriated and altered by creationist goobers.

 

[sakinago]

It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. .....

Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.

NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.

"Not necessarily incompatible"

Of course not! Agreed wholeheartedly. One can point at anything, and say, "God did that!" Okay, fine.

If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise), which is documented several times in the fossil record -- it kinda, sorta, almost starts looking like a cosmic ray storm or violent event is indeed an "act of God". That's what the insurance companies call it --- RIGHT?

Point is, the tree of life didn't "plod along" at a constant rate of growth and diversity.

Besides, if you look at the story of Creation in Genesis, it's REALLY NOT that far off from the researchsy, sciency version of events. How did they get that far before science began?

"If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise)"

Nonsensical statement. "Evolutionary wise" can mean many things, depending on one's view of graduation and punctuation, and the overlap. You are selling snake oil, friend. You picked the wrong mark this time. And it's misleading, in that even those pushing punctuated evolution admit gradualism.

No, it does not "almost" look like an "act of God". Bullshit. That's you trying to cram magical nonsense in the gaps of our understanding. Same bullshit for 1000s of years. Nor do the examples of phyletic gradualism rule out an act of God. You are simply taking an overlay of magical bullshit and laying it on top of a scientific theory.


Yes, the story of Genesis, as it relates to human origin, is far off; as in, as far off as it gets. No, our genetic "Adan and Eve" did not meet. We know this. It is clearly 100% wrong .

I think what flacaltenn was referring to in genesis is the actual creation story of the heavens, earth and life. Which actually is not far off considering all the other creation stories from the thousands of other religions out there. This one came from a time where they didn't comprehend the earth was a sphere, or that the sun was a star, or what an actual star was. They didn't understand the concept of gravity, what blood did, what lightning was. No concept of energy, or matter, or disease was caused by microbes, or that microbes even existed, or that light has a speed. Schools didn't even exist, and they didn't even have the language or terms for half the shit I'm talking about. So that being considered, how close they got it does raise eyebrows, at least for me. Now you could say even a blind squirrel to that, absolutely. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I mean if a God was going to contact people, THESE PEOPLE, who thought the warm ball of light in the sky was spinning around THEM...and explain to them how of all this came about, to people who''d scratch their head at the basic concept of DNA...how we'll do you think they'd comprehend and explain that story to others? I mean they described a great void, then a burst of existence, then light, then a formation of heavens and earth, then a geo forming on earth with lands and sea, then plants, then fish, then animals, then humans (I think, I'm just going off of memory, haven't practiced since I was a kid). I mean try to explain what we know now to a five year old, and see how well they can recite it to 5 others, then see how those 5 explain it others...it could sound something a lot like that. Again you could say even a blind squirrel absolutely...but it is something that I, and I'm sure others find interesting.

I mean I find the Phoenix lights interesting. that doesn't mean I think aliens are among us and infiltrating government and abducting people and stuff. But that shit did not look like flares to me. I don't know what it was, could've been some government secret project or something, but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows...

And like it or not, there a still tons of questions that have our greatest minds scratching their heads, even when it comes to existence and life. Like the jump from non life to life, then the jump from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life (which might even be more statistically rare than life to non life), and the jump of the mammal to human brain, which is a pretty significant jump compared to the rest of the field. To say that science has completely disproven god is ridiculous. If there is one, it's certainly outside of our realm of existence...since it created it, which includes our current and probably future reach of science. I also don't think you can prove god.

 

[alang1216]

The problem is NOT my belief in God. The problem is your lack of evidence to support your theory. Now.... I can see evidence of micro-evolution. These are mostly small adaptive changes to species over time, resulting in new species. They are almost always related to environment or natural necessity for reproduction through natural selection. BUT.... I see ZERO evidence to support MACRO-evolution, whereby species jump to a completely new genera. If that has happened, we should have plenty of evidence and there is none. Everything you can present is speculative.

You're correct, the problem is NOT your belief in God. However there is abundant evidence to support (macro)evolution. The fossil record clearly shows the genus Australopithecus was replaced by the genus Homo around 2.8 million years ago for example. There are plenty of other examples.

 

[MarkDuffy]

If one believes in microevolution, then he has admitted to all of evolution.

yes, accurate. And scientists don't like these terms anyway, because they were misappropriated and altered by creationist goobers.

What is really funny is that evolutionary biology showed macroevolution from the very start from the fossil record. It was microevolution that took us so long.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.

NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.

"Not necessarily incompatible"

Of course not! Agreed wholeheartedly. One can point at anything, and say, "God did that!" Okay, fine.

If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise), which is documented several times in the fossil record -- it kinda, sorta, almost starts looking like a cosmic ray storm or violent event is indeed an "act of God". That's what the insurance companies call it --- RIGHT?

Point is, the tree of life didn't "plod along" at a constant rate of growth and diversity.

Besides, if you look at the story of Creation in Genesis, it's REALLY NOT that far off from the researchsy, sciency version of events. How did they get that far before science began?

"If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise)"

Nonsensical statement. "Evolutionary wise" can mean many things, depending on one's view of graduation and punctuation, and the overlap. You are selling snake oil, friend. You picked the wrong mark this time. And it's misleading, in that even those pushing punctuated evolution admit gradualism.

No, it does not "almost" look like an "act of God". Bullshit. That's you trying to cram magical nonsense in the gaps of our understanding. Same bullshit for 1000s of years. Nor do the examples of phyletic gradualism rule out an act of God. You are simply taking an overlay of magical bullshit and laying it on top of a scientific theory.


Yes, the story of Genesis, as it relates to human origin, is far off; as in, as far off as it gets. No, our genetic "Adan and Eve" did not meet. We know this. It is clearly 100% wrong .

I think what flacaltenn was referring to in genesis is the actual creation story of the heavens, earth and life. Which actually is not far off considering all the other creation stories from the thousands of other religions out there. This one came from a time where they didn't comprehend the earth was a sphere, or that the sun was a star, or what an actual star was. They didn't understand the concept of gravity, what blood did, what lightning was. No concept of energy, or matter, or disease was caused by microbes, or that microbes even existed, or that light has a speed. Schools didn't even exist, and they didn't even have the language or terms for half the shit I'm talking about. So that being considered, how close they got it does raise eyebrows, at least for me. Now you could say even a blind squirrel to that, absolutely. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I mean if a God was going to contact people, THESE PEOPLE, who thought the warm ball of light in the sky was spinning around THEM...and explain to them how of all this came about, to people who''d scratch their head at the basic concept of DNA...how we'll do you think they'd comprehend and explain that story to others? I mean they described a great void, then a burst of existence, then light, then a formation of heavens and earth, then a geo forming on earth with lands and sea, then plants, then fish, then animals, then humans (I think, I'm just going off of memory, haven't practiced since I was a kid). I mean try to explain what we know now to a five year old, and see how well they can recite it to 5 others, then see how those 5 explain it others...it could sound something a lot like that. Again you could say even a blind squirrel absolutely...but it is something that I, and I'm sure others find interesting.

I mean I find the Phoenix lights interesting. that doesn't mean I think aliens are among us and infiltrating government and abducting people and stuff. But that shit did not look like flares to me. I don't know what it was, could've been some government secret project or something, but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows...

And like it or not, there a still tons of questions that have our greatest minds scratching their heads, even when it comes to existence and life. Like the jump from non life to life, then the jump from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life (which might even be more statistically rare than life to non life), and the jump of the mammal to human brain, which is a pretty significant jump compared to the rest of the field. To say that science has completely disproven god is ridiculous. If there is one, it's certainly outside of our realm of existence...since it created it, which includes our current and probably future reach of science. I also don't think you can prove god.

Oh, I agree there is much we do not yet know about evolution, and the universe in general. To know it, it would be helpful for all of these people trying to stuff god into these gaps in our knowledge to stay the fk out of the way.

"but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows..."

Yes, but only because I don't, personally, understand it. It would not then rationally follow that nobody understands it, or that it cannot be understood. In fact, the reasonable assumption would be to assume it can be understood, and that this understanding likely does not involve some extraordinary or new concept or claim.

And I don't think they looked like flares. they looked like planes to me. And, voila, that's exactly what they were.

the second event of lights that evening were indeed, flares.

the Phoenix lights were long ago explained. as in, literally days after they were witnessed. Don't you find it odd that this "faux mystery" is still presented as a mystery?

 

[MarkDuffy]

The finches are a great example of micro-evolution. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. Finches didn't evolve into ducks or seagulls.

You are incorrect, they are considered separate species, at least by biologists. They have different genes and don't interbreed allowing the differences to be inherited by subsequent generations.

But no frogs become say lizards? Just finches becoming different finches

Sorry but the world/science doesn't confirm to your expectaions. How many changes must there be before you say the finches are no longer finches?

When they no longer are finches. It's hard to argue that a finch isn't a finch. Especially when even the scientific community calls them finches.

And btw it's not my expectation that's the issue. It's the theory of evolution that states that one create evolves into another creature. How exactly can this be true if science and reality don't confirm to those expectations?

You can't have it both ways. Either animals evolve into different animals or science and reality don't confirm to those expectations.

When we evolutionary biologists talk about evolution, we are talking in the past tense mostly. Organsims do not really evolve cuz there is no reason to. All life is finely tuned to its environment from previous evolution. For evolution to occur, something must change that opens up new environmental niches that cannot be filled by migration.

The history of life on this planet is one of long periods of stasis followed by the rapid radiation of new taxa due mainly to environmental change selection and other evolutionary mechanisms. This is where Chuck Darwin was wrong with his gradualism (which IDers are wrongly still stuck on).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The finches are a great example of micro-evolution. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. Finches didn't evolve into ducks or seagulls.

You are incorrect, they are considered separate species, at least by biologists. They have different genes and don't interbreed allowing the differences to be inherited by subsequent generations.

But no frogs become say lizards? Just finches becoming different finches

Sorry but the world/science doesn't confirm to your expectaions. How many changes must there be before you say the finches are no longer finches?

When they no longer are finches. It's hard to argue that a finch isn't a finch. Especially when even the scientific community calls them finches.

And btw it's not my expectation that's the issue. It's the theory of evolution that states that one create evolves into another creature. How exactly can this be true if science and reality don't confirm to those expectations?

You can't have it both ways. Either animals evolve into different animals or science and reality don't confirm to those expectations.

When we evolutionary biologists talk about evolution, we are talking in the past tense mostly. Organsims do not really evolve cuz there is no reason to. All life is finely tuned to its environment from previous evolution. For evolution to occur, something must change that opens up new environmental niches that cannot be filled by migration.

The history of life on this planet is one of long periods of stasis followed by the rapid radiation of new taxa due mainly to environmental change selection and other evolutionary mechanisms. This is where Chuck Darwin was wrong with his gradualism (which IDers are wrongly still stuck on).

But we still find examples of gradualism in the fossil record. Natural selection by the environment is only one mechanism of evolution. Genetic drift is another, significant mechanism, and it could certainly result in gradual change of a species over time and speciation, even in a fixed climate/environment.

I think I have to agree with those who feel evolution occurs at any and all speeds, and we can find examples all along the spectrum.