Thank you. Since you can't see evolution as you have said, and since everything that we CAN see, and that is CALLED evolution, can be explained by adaptation better, and since all the non-adaptation mutations that we see are destructive mutations, where is the evidence for evolution?
Thats your idea that everything fits adoption better then evolution.
Adoption is a need, will or society driven skill you acquired, evolution is a pre dispositioning you are born with. You dont adapt to being taller, you are taller, you dont adapt to become world champion in 100m run, you are born a fast runner, - that might require training. You dont adapt to become a social or technical genius, you already are. Some might never recognize it; some might never grab or be given the chance of exploring it. The rest of us can adapt or train all our life, and will never reach such a level.
And once you recognize that some people are born more suited for certain tasks/skills (e.g. they do not adapt to them) it becomes very hard to reconcile with one man started it all (Adam) and all his offsprings turn out variously suited for certain task and none of them evolved. How can that be?
From Dictionary.com:
Quote from: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/adoption?s=t
adoption
[uh-dop-shuh n]
1. the act of adopting: the adoption of a new amendment.
2. the state of being adopted.
[uh-dop-shuh n]
1. the act of adopting: the adoption of a new amendment.
2. the state of being adopted.
So, what does adoption have to do with evolution?
Kinda like, what does simple change evolution have to do with evolution theory evolution?
