“When an animal or plant kind comes from another the mutant has no one to reproduce with, so end of the line. In other words, when a being belonging to a species can no longer mate with its parent species, then it has to be lucky enough to come across a mate that mutated in the same way in the same location, and at the same time in order to continue the new DNA. Yet when we are told that there could be about 8.8 million species, which is hard to imagine.
Unless there is deliberate tampering within the DNA of an animal kind, how can a random mutation create a new kind, it simply cannot. All that is achieved is a new feature for the same species. But a feature that was always possible given the gene pool, but laid dormant or hidden till the right environmental conditions came along.
What about isolated populations that diverge slowly and eventually become another kind? For a start this has never been demonstrated. Observed changes in cats, dogs, bacteria, or whatever still remain cats, dogs, and bacteria. Surely it wouldn’t be too hard to isolate a population of a kind, and see if they start to evolve away from its ancestral kind like a cat becoming a dog. In all likelihood if it were possible it would evolve into a new kind and not an existing kind of course.
Being a controlled experiment, you could speed up the so-called evolutionary process to the join partners with features that head toward a different kind. Bacteria would be ideal and yes they change all the time. But no one has observed bacteria become a different kind other than bacteria. Of course the answer you will get is that there is never enough time to observe a kind changing into another. So it remains that we must take it on faith that one kind can change into another kind given enough time.
The fact that we have to take this on faith just demonstrates that Darwinian Evolution is just another belief system among many. Its prophets speak and the adherents of this faith blindly believe the so-called evidence. The most ironic thing of all is that they accuse Christians of having a blind faith when the definition of faith according to scripture is ‘evidence of things not seen’. Of course some Christians certainly have blind faith, but neither is that a good thing. However, many have true faith in God. They have evidence of God in their own lives. They have proof for themselves. Atheists have no proof of their beliefs at all. All they have is misguided hope. A hope that after death, they will be nothing.
True faith is evidence of that which you believe. To all who have had encounters with God, this is their personal evidence of him moving in a real way in their lives. This evidence is only good for the person having the experience. In order to know for yourself if God is real, you to need to experience him. But I know that many will not even bother because they do not care for such things and hence they by choice reject God.
