annalex: "Not between complex species."
I'll say it again: you obviously don't understand basic facts & ideas of evolution.
All species (whether simple or complex) reproduce, and every reproduction can involve some modifications due to mutations in genes.
In Evolution Theory this is called, unsurprisingly, "descent with modifications".
If, rarely, a mutation improves an individual's chances to survive and reproduce, then it will become part of that species' gene pool, and will contribute toward its evolution.
This is due to the action of "natural selection", which is the second major factor in Evolution Theory.
Both descent with modifications and natural selection have been observed and confirmed innumerable times, in every species (whether simple or complex).
Since, by definition, a confirmed observation is a fact, that makes the basic elements of evolution facts.
Evolution Theory says that genetic mutations, accumulating every generation, can eventually lead to offspring which no longer interbreed with their original species -- whether that species is simple or complex.
We see innumerable examples in nature, and I've sited one -- the horse family, where sub-species readily interbreed, but different species do not produce viable offspring.
And in every case (whether simple or complex), fossil records and DNA analyses confirm Evolution's Theory of common ancestors in the distant past.
annalex: "Plants, yes.
Comlpex creatures like mammals -- no.
We only have breeds, not species that get selected around. "
Genetically speaking, plants are not less "complex" than mammals.
Indeed, many plants have much larger genomes than humans do.
So "complexity" has nothing to do with evolution.
Yes, plants do more readily interbreed and hybridize, and that's why there can be new human-created species of plants.
In animals, change is slower and takes longer, but the process is the same -- descent with modifications and natural selection.
And as with plants, evidence for animal evolution is found in fossils and DNA.
So I ask: why scientifically would a process (evolution) that you acknowledge has over time produced new species of plants, not also produce new species of animals?
annalex: "Your beliefs are absurd generally.
You, for example, believe in evolution."
The real issue here is the philosophy behind science, "methodological naturalism".
If you reject that, then you reject all of science and you are in fact, anti-science -- whatever claims you make to the contrary.
Evolution is a theory of science, based on methodological naturalism.
No other such theory of "creationism" or "intelligent design" is fully grounded in scientific naturalism.
annalex: "The question on hand is that whatever similar fossils you observe, they only prove that similar creatures existed.
They do not prove that creatures of one species produced creatures of another species. "
But there is no scientific alternative to the naturalistic assumptions that every fossil came from closely related ancestors, and those older fossils can often be found by looking in older geological strata.
But your contrary assertion -- that God created each and every species individually, and that no two species are related to each other by ancestry -- is first of all by definition unscientific, and second without any physical evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- to support it.
annalex: "That was the meaning of the car junk yard example, -- you seem to have missed it."
I totally understood your junk-yard analogy, and the flaws which make it bogus: unlike all of life, no car ever mated and reproduced itself.
"Evolution" among cars is a function of their factory-manufacturing processes.
By contrast, in every living thing, evolution is a function of individuals' reproduction.
Of course you can well say, as most religious people believe, that God's Hand is involved in every act of reproduction, but such belief simply confirms that Evolution is God's chosen method for creating life as we know it.
