Different species can still produce offspring, even viable offspring.
If the living conditions were very stable at home would those butterflies changed at all. Logic would say that if the environment stays the same the the species living there should also stay the same.
The environment is not the only cue for genetic shifts.
Fine does destroys
"Typically, bacteriophages consist of an outer
protein hull enclosing
genetic material. The genetic material can be
ssRNA (single stranded RNA),
dsRNA,
ssDNA, or
dsDNA between 5 and 500 kilo
base pairs long with either circular or linear arrangement. Bacteriophages are much smaller than the bacteria they destroy - usually between 20 and 200
nm in size."
What's your point?
If it changes that much then it is also targeting a new bacteria.
Again, what is your point?
Phages are the most ubiquitous organism on Earth. They are naturally occurring viruses that infect bacteria and bacteria only. We live in a sea of phages. Our bodies are more phage than human. There approximately 10 to the 32 power of them around us. That's 10 with 32 zeros behind it.
Where is this going? I've taken microbiology courses...I don't need the out of context recap.
Antibiotics cannot keep up with evolving infections, while phages naturally co-evolve with the bacteria.
Is that a shock? There are plenty of bacterial strains now resistant to Vancomycin, a drug you don't ever want to be put on...
It still targets a specific bateria and that bacteria is destroyed.
It doesn't traget anything. It floats around until contacted by something it's programmed to respond to. There is no selection process here. You still don't even get the significance of that, despit your cut and paste hacks from Wikipedia...
Adam named all the animals. Go with the list of clean and unclean animals that are given, have any of them changed?
That's not a complete list of animals, nor are they classified, and that list was given to Moses and Aaron, not Adam.
I thought we went over the time constraints already...In the 6000 or so years since the bible says that apparently all was created, that would be about 250 generations in cow years. That's enough time to have population means change such as: horns or no horns, colour of horns, shape of horns, size of horns, and then the piebold colouration in those same cows.
Do you follow that? Starting with one populations of a black cow, and splitting the group in two and separating them, we could have two groups of Holstein cows...
That's not to say that evolution can't happen faster...it depends on mutations and changes that favour mutations...that is a random event. For the most part, it takes quite a long time, millions of years.
So, again, evolution cannot be observed and the fossil record is far from complete and that means Darwinism is not based on fact, it has elements of faith involved.
No, you haven't proved that.
I could write down that God came to me today and showed me another world with flying lizards and polka dot fish that live in the air instead of the water...maybe in 6,000 years I'll have some followers too, extoling the facts of my writings...
Not really, I just don't buy crap that can't be proven. You may have bought into Darwinism just because you can't comprehend God. What does that make you and Dexter?
Your arguments lack a sharpness, lacks understanding. That's obtuse. What I may or may not have done is inconsequential to your ability to string together a coherent thesis.
Oh come on, that little picture that show the progression of man from a monkey to what we are today can certainly be include a few new drawings based on what changes have already taken place. It wouldn't serve any purpose though.
You mean ape, not monkey...
The changes that have already taken place narrow down some of the next possible steps, but that's about it...It doesn't serve anyones purpose to make blind guesses...