A creator has not been established. No one has provided any evidence of such. You have assumed a creator. All your subsequent conclusions derive from this. I have not assumed such. I refer you to the null hypothesis discussion above.
If one can show that the evolution of something is so unlikely that it is almost impossible, then one must assume design not a stochastic evolutionary process.
Again, false dichotomy. If one can show evolution is impossibly unlikely -- an event that has not occured save for misapplied mathematics-- then the only thing one can assume is that evolution via the methods described does not adequately explain diversity.
You are assuming that something will happen according to evolutionary theory and using it as proof of evolution. What has been observed is the regression to mean.
Seasonal variation in beak size HAS been observed. There is no reason to hypothesize a regression to the mean in the event of permanent climate change.
The quick changes due to environment and the 'return to mean' show that organisms adapt without mutation.
Exactly what do you think evolutionary theory states, anyway? Variation is the key. The source of variation is irrelevant.
We were speaking of abiogenesis. You said that evolution does not require abiogenesis to be true. I said it does because once there is a Creator, it must always be a consideration in evolution. So yes, the lack of any possibility of life having arisen without a Creator is a big problem for evolution.
If one can show that the evolution of something is so unlikely that it is almost impossible, then one must assume design not a stochastic evolutionary process. -me-
Again, false dichotomy. If one can show evolution is impossibly unlikely -- an event that has not occured save for misapplied mathematics-- then the only thing one can assume is that evolution via the methods described does not adequately explain diversity.
Hard to say if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me on the above, sounds like blather to me. You have not shown any mis-applied mathematics in my statements or in the problems that evolution faces.
You are assuming that something will happen according to evolutionary theory and using it as proof of evolution. What has been observed is the regression to mean. -me-
Seasonal variation in beak size HAS been observed. There is no reason to hypothesize a regression to the mean in the event of permanent climate change.
Which does not prove that the beaks will keep growing or getting smaller regardless which environment ends up permanent. Your assumption that it will continue progressing is not substantiated by anything at all. The fact that when climate changes back, the species beak size changes back shows quite well that the changes are not due to mutations - which are the only things which could cause permanent progressive change in the species. So the beaks of the finches show quite well that adaptation does not mean evolution - as I have been saying.
The quick changes due to environment and the 'return to mean' show that organisms adapt without mutation. -me-
Exactly what do you think evolutionary theory states, anyway? Variation is the key. The source of variation is irrelevant.
Of course the source of the variation matters. For man to have descended from bacteria lots of genetic change, lots of additional genes, DNA, functions had to have arisen. Evolutionists say that these mutations are the way species adapt to the environment. The only 'how' for these changes occurring posited by evolutionists is mutations. The finches show quite well that there is adaptation without mutation.