I've made that exact point on numerous occasions. If this statement is true, and I believe it is, evolution cannot explain life as it exists today.
You really should learn something about the subject you criticise before making a fool of yourself.
Is the first sentence all you read?
I've made that exact point on numerous occasions. If this statement is true, and I believe it is, evolution cannot explain life as it exists today.
Neither biology nor logic are your strong points, are they? In fact just what are you basing your pronouncements on? You don't seem to have any knowledge of the science. Just what is the value of your opinion that your keep favouring the forum with? Repeatedly expressing your opinion without evidential support is an argument from authority, so explain to us why we should respect your authority in these matters.
I've made that exact point on numerous occasions. If this statement is true, and I believe it is, evolution cannot explain life as it exists today.
It may at first superficial glance appear that way to someone who tries to draw conclusions about biology without actually having bothered to *learn* anything about biology (*cough*), but your simplistic presumption actually turns out not to be the case.
"Same species" is, essentially, a measure of the degree of genetic compatibility (i.e. "genetic distance"), and as such is a nontransitive property. A can be the same species as B, B can be the same species as C, C can be the same species as D, even though A is *NOT* the same species as D.
That sounds strange at first glance, but it's really not. "Same species as" can be thought of as "close enough, genetically, to interbreed". So while A can be "close enough" to B, and B can be "close enough" to C, etc., the *total* genetic distance between A and D can be far enough to preclude successful interbreeding.
This is no more strange than saying that city A is close enough to city B to make the trip between them on one tank of gas, and city B is close enough to city C to make the trip between them on one tank of gas, *but* A is not close enough to C to make the trip on one tank of gas.
So even though each new generation is still "the same species as" (i.e., close enough genetically) as their parent generation, (and this applies to *any* parent/offspring pair of generations) they're not genetically *identical*, and over many, many generations the accumulating small genetic changes can reach the point where "Generation N+1000" is different enough from the original "Generation N" that they've become a new species from that original population.
This doesn't just occur over time, either -- there are populations of animals, such as the Green Warbler, where the population wraps around some large geographic obstacle, like a mountain. Each local population in the "ring" can interbreed with the very slightly different local population to the "left" and "right" of it, *BUT* at the point where the "arms" of the circle meet up on the other side of the obstacle, the "ends" are different enough from each other that they *don't* interbreed despite living in overlapping populations.
Biology isn't as simplistic as you're trying to make it out to be. And believe it or not, biologists have spent over a century working out the details of these issues which you came up with on your lunchbreak and thought were "killer" new observations which would make evolutionary biology "impossible"...
The offspring are slightly different from the parents. You are not a clone of your dad, are you?