The fact that animals can adapt and change to a certain degree is quite different from the idea that all life arose from a single molecule.
Were we to stop where the evidence stops, he would be forced to say that small changes—about which both creationists and evolutionists agree—have not been shown to render “big transformations”
The phenomenon of bacterial drug resistance;
“..regardless of how bacteria acquired their antibiotic resistance (i.e., by mutation, conjugation, or by transposition), they are still exactly the same bacteria after receiving that trait as they were before receiving it. The “evolution” is not vertical macroevolution but horizontal microevolution (i.e., adaptation). In other words, these bacteria “...are still the same bacteria and of the same type, being only a variety that differs from the normal in its resistance to the antibiotic. No new ‘species’ have been produced” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). In commenting on the changing, or sharing, of genetic material, ReMine has suggested: “It has not allowed bacteria to arbitrarily swap major innovations such as the use of chlorophyll or flagella. The major features of microorganisms fall into well-defined groups that seem to have a nested pattern like the rest of life” (1993, p. 404).
Bowden, M. (1991), Science vs. Evolution (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications).
ReMine, Walter J. (1993), The Biotic Message (St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Science).
Seems like a reasonable approach.
That distinction is in reality not so simple. Some plants for example are considered separate species but only because the time in which they breed makes them incapable of hybridization. Yet move those two cohorts elsewhere where the weather is different, and they can. Other "species" can produce viable hybrids at the intersection of their respective ranges, but cannot if the genes are pulled from farther apart. The system is far more plastic than has been acknowledged by taxonomy.
So you’re saying that it’s only “evolution” if there is specieization?