[Shadowfax]

Excellent input. Thank you. I will review and consider this.

It may be that my arguments need to be re-evaluated. Or it may be that my definitions are at fault again. For example, the hypothetical changes in a fish may technically lead to a new species of a fish. (Although I'm not admitting that until I review this information you've provided.) But for the theory of evolution to be true, a fish would have to evolve into something that is not a fish and is more complex than a fish. All by itself without intelligent intervention.

Such a change would have to be observable, reproducible, and predictive. Until it is, you are not talking about the scientific method.

Again, thanks for the input.

[NJ_gent]

"For example, the hypothetical changes in a fish may technically lead to a new species of a fish. (Although I'm not admitting that until I review this information you've provided.) But for the theory of evolution to be true, a fish would have to evolve into something that is not a fish and is more complex than a fish. All by itself without intelligent intervention."

While you're checking out the observed instances of speciation (and remember, we've only been looking for it for the past 100 years or so, which is a very small period of time from an evolutionary standpoint), you might also want to take a look at polyploidy and related genetic mutations. Polyploidy is very common in simpler organisms (like plants), and has absolutely massive potential for speciation events. Basically, it's a fast and dirty way to add a ton of genetic material to the pool. That material then has the potential to be shaped in any number of different ways to provide all kinds of new functionality to the organism.