I never heard anybody knit-pick a topic as much as you. The teensy-eensy bit of lab work that shows that evolution just might possibly exist, has been caused by scientists setting it all up to find what they were looking for. That exact causation defies evolution theory about random mutations.
There is absolutely nothing in nature that has ever been observed that has ever been proven to be part of evolution. Everything in nature that seems to be scientific evidence for evolution, scientifically fits creation better.
Evolution is a hoax.
There is absolutely nothing in nature that has ever been observed that has ever been proven to be part of evolution. Everything in nature that seems to be scientific evidence for evolution, scientifically fits creation better.
Evolution is a hoax.
What about the peppered moth during the industrial revolution?
What about it? Until you show that there is pure random in the mix somewhere, all you are saying is that the moth was programmed into nature this way, by cause and effect, no matter what caused it. This is completely opposite evolution theory that depends on random mutations.
But even if there were random mutations, the odds are very great that beneficial random mutations would be far fewer in number than detrimental mutations. Their cumulative effect would be overcome by the detrimental mutations, and by the vast amount of places where no mutations occur, that they would be destroyed long before they could advance into some kind of evolution change.
Survival of the fittest would destroy the beneficial changes in just the same way that evolutionists try to use them to show evolutionary advances, but even more, because there are way few beneficial changes compared with detrimental changes and no changes. In fact, a beneficial mutation has not really been observed ever. There is no way to logically suggest beneficial mutations could survive, even if we could find one.