Ah, the old LBB definition of evolution -- that critters evolve into more complex critters -- which has absolutely no bearing on the real definition of evolution -- that critters change to fit their environments.
Ah, the old LBB definition of evolution -- that critters evolve into more complex critters -- which has absolutely no bearing on the real definition of evolution -- that critters change to fit their environments.
What you are proposing (as are the idiots from TalkOrigins that claim that the definition of evolution is 'a change in allele frequency') is that evolution only works in a lateral manner, rearranging the species without adding anything new to them. Now if you wish to claim that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of new higher forms of life then you must admit that man being a higher form of life than all others must have been created by God.
Of course you will not say such a thing. You are just dishonestly evading the question put to you by saying 'that is not evolution'. Of course it is. Without new genes, new additional DNA the descent of man from bacteria cannot be explained. Let's see you deny that evolution says that.
What we see here again is the usual dishonest form of argument of evolutionists. What we see here is the reason why they do not dare to state what the theory of evolution is - because they want to dance about and say when cornered that the refutation is not what evolution is all about.