In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Picky female frogs drive evolution of new species in less than 8,000 years, Conservativehomeschoolmama wrote:
"It's still a frog. It did not turn into a salamander or a snake. I would put this article under *adaptation* not evolution."
"Frog" is not a species. It's a whole group of species, just like salamanders and snakes. Here we have direct evidence of one species of frog splitting into two. And, yes, it's an adaptation to environmental change. THAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION IS ALL ABOUT!
Trying to dodge the issue via semantic games is dishonest. God will boil you in molten sulfur for a billion years for being dishonest.
no its not. Nobody argues against adaptation. But where did that ability to adapt come from? The frog cam from an egg of a frog which came from...etc. becomes a chicken and egg argument.
That is where evolutionist branch of to say that that that frog came from a fish egg, which came from a sponge which cam from bacteria. And creationists say the frog was designed by God and all frogs have multiplied according to their kind, in a vast array of diversity with the ability to adapt to its changing environment.
So far I have not seen compelling evidence of the type of 'family tree' evolution from single cells up to mammals etc. But all around I see compelling evidence of a God.