Relevant portions in bold. Would you call albinism a mutation advantageous in extreme latitudes?
to say that an entire species will gradually mutate together into another species is ludicrous.
Why is it ludicrous to suggest that changes in selection pressure cause a population to change. I would suggest it is rather the rule than the exception. After all, without a breeding population, critters can't adapt, they die.
If a climate changes from wet to dry, the bird populations in the region will find new wet regions, adapt to the dry conditions, or die. It's a simple concept. Why do you insist on making it difficult?
I keep asking for examples, real examples of favorable mutations which increase complexity (as evolution requires) I never hear any examples.
Like albinism?
I already did in post# 549, and you have not been able to refute a word of it, here it is again:
[---Evidence against abiogensis, evidence against abiogenisis, misapplied math masquerading as evidence against. Blah, blah, blah. Snip.---]
Ignoring the fact that your arguments have no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution, do you have evidence FOR a designer?
Yup, I have given plenty of scientific evidence against abiogenesis which you cannot refute. You cannot even imagine a way in which life could have come about according to what we know to be a fact. Also, you keep talking about misapplied math, yet you cannot refute it either. Here, look at it again. Let's see if you can give a refutation instead of spouting total blather:
Nice rhetoric, but totally disproved by modern science. There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem). The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.