How do evolutionist see life forms making small adaptive changes as evidence for 1 animal evolving to another?

Mike,

You are thinking too simplistically about this problem to arrive at an accurate understanding. Evolution is not about one type of animal evolving "into" another, it is about gradual change and diversification over time. For example, modern day horses may diversify into several different groups, some of which may undergo significant change and even develop new features. But they would still be horses by today's biological defnition.

If small changes can occur in populations over a short period of time, and we can even see NEW SPECIES evolve within our lifetimes (which has been directly observed... check out examples here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm... then it is entirely reasonable to conclude that large changes can occur over very long periods of time. I could equally well pose the question to you: What on earth makes you think that small, adaptive changes will not accumulate over time?

To answer your question directly, though, evolutionists do NOT use small adaptive changes as evidence for life forms greatly changing over time. Not directly, anway. There is abundant evidence that this happens. Some of it IS in fact in the fossil record, despite your bold proclomation that it's not. Have you LOOKED at the fossil record? Do you know what's there? You would be amazed at the series of transitional forms that have been uncovered showing how different life forms evolved. If you don't believe me, check out the following:

http://cambrian.tripod.com/Reptile-Mammal

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p15.htm#Tetrapo...

http://delamagente.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/fos...

There is not just fossil evidence, though, there is now reams of evidence from genetics and molecular biology that present day organisms are RELATED to each other on a family tree, which means that we must have evolved from previously existing ancestors. Take a look at some of this evidence, and you'll be completely blown away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

So you see, your question is far too simplistic. Biologists do not just "assume" that small changes imply large changes. We can see mountains of fossil and genetic evidence for the large changes that have taken place during the history of life.

The only question is: Will you acknowledge receiving this information, or will you pretend you never saw my answer and continue to claim that there is no evidence for macroevolution? Which will it be???

There is nothing that would prevent species that accumulated such changes over a long time span becoming separate species from those they separated from or were not sharing genes with. Over time they could become less and less alike. We see evidence for this in our genetic code. We also have observed speciation now.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evidence for common descent which indicates life forms of today share a common ancestor and evolved differently into species we have today:

Endogenous retroviral insertions - Ancient retroviruses inserted inactivated viral genes into genomes. For a retrovirus to be inherited in all members of a species, a series of highly improbable events must occur. The virus must insert into a gamete cell and it must mutate so it is inactive. That gamete cell must be used to make an embryo that lives to reproduce and whose genome fixates into the population at random location in the genome. This rare event is usually species specific.

Pseudogenes - Shared errors are a powerful argument for a common source. If two books describe the same concept in similar language, it's possible they just both converged on the same wording. However, if they both share the same grammar or spelling errors it becomes improbable to assume that they did not derive from a common source. There are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a mutation or error. Species often share the same pseudogene with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the L-gulonolactone oxidase that synthesizes vitamin C. All simians including humans share one pseudogene of inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase, but the guinea pig has a different pseudogene indicating a different mutation.

Chromosome fusion - Gene fusion or chromosome fusion is when two chromosomes are spliced together. As an example, chimpanzees have one more chromosome than humans do. If the two species share a common ancestor, scientists should be able to figure out what happened to that chromosome. Researchers have found that chromosome 2 in humans is actually the fusion of two separate chimpanzee chromosomes. At the end of each chromosome is a marker called a telomere, which usually appears only on the ends. In human chromosome 2 it also appears in the center, marking where the two ends fused.

Convergence - The phylogenetic trees constructed using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the trees are intact. If any of these methods were flawed, they would not converge on the same tree.

You obviously have not understood the way evolution works.

In a simple example: It is always the slowest and weakest animals that get killed by predators. That means that the healthy and fast survive. Their genetics (health/speed) are passed on to their offspring.

And no, evolution is not a gap theory. It is a sound, provable scientific theory which can be retested over and over again with predictable outcome. Till date creationism has not been able to provide one single point of evidence

Have you ever seen a chihuahua? Do you deny they have evolved (through selective breeding ) from wolves? are they "different animals"? And that's just in the relatively short time since man domesticated dogs. The time scale since the death of the dinosaurs is almost incomprehensible to man. Gap theory? yes the gaps are where the failures were.

No, plant life and animals branched out seperately from a prior ancestor. by the type, algae is such as early plant life yet has nevertheless developed considering the fact that then. 'Plankton' isn't even a single form of organism, it incredibly is a blanket term for many microscopic sea existence, alongside with crustaceans and micro organism.

Well, the simple fact is that evolution doesn't limit itself to small changes.

Are you afraid to read Origin of Species ?

Try it. Then try another, its a very broad subject.

Second, if its gaps you want look in the Bible.

Evolutionists see life forms that learn their science in church or don't go to real schools , evolving into stupider life forms. I see evidence of that all over the place. Don't you?

1 animal does not evolve into anouther. That is just ridiculous. Animals may split off, depending on the conditions faced by several of them, but, in the end, there is one continuous path, and nothing that the human race evolved from, is still existent at a multi-cellular level.

evolution isn't a gap theory because we have been able to link many of today's animals to all their ancestors going back in time.

How do NON-"evolutionists" see small adaptive changes, i.e. single steps, not adding up over time to a full staircase, i.e. speciation?