Without having watched anything yet, it's clear that almost every species' descendents are a uniqie product of its father and mother having sex. They are probabilistically unique in their underlying n...
Micro-evolution definitely does happen. It is observable and makes logical sense that environmental conditions select for specific traits within a kind of animal. It does lead to "speciation" or the creation of new species (a word created only in recent times, and poorly defined when you dig into it). For example, I believe horses, donkeys, and zebras probably had a common ancestor - some kind of horse.
However, this is simply a narrowing of the gene pool. No new data was created in the process. It results in less diversity of traits/genetics within a population, which CAN help the population survive better under specific environmental pressures. BUT, each successive generation does not "gain" any new functional organs, structures, proteins, etc. Instead, each successive generation is, on average, slightly weaker or more sickly if you disregard any environmental factors. An example would be chihuahuas, which have been (artificially) selected for being small and cute. Their survival is dependent on being cute enough a human will take care of them, but in absolute terms, they are far less capable of survival and more illness-prone than wolves. You can think of micro-evolution like very slow inbreeding on the scale of a whole species.
Evolutionists like to set up a straw-man argument: that creationists believe God created every single species in Genesis 1, and they all remain unchanged until this day. The reality is that "species" is a modern idea, and Genesis only says God created the "kinds" of animals. This even supports the story of Noah's Ark, with it only needing space for 2 of each KIND of animal (also excluding things like fish or bugs, which could survive the flood regardless). As an aside, Noah probably took juveniles instead of adults, too.
God created his animals with a perfect, fully formed, fully functional genetic code, with sufficient generic diversity already present for a large population to develop before inbreeding became an issue. As a result of generations of mutations and lost generic diversity from micro-evolution, today's species are both inferior to and more numerous than their original ancestral "kinds" that God created.
What biblical creationists do NOT believe in are macro-evolution, abiogenesis, cosmic evolution, or the big bang.
Macro-evolution would require the addition of functional genetic data. Evolutionists ascribe this to mutations. In reality, mutations either have no visible effect ("junk" dna changes - though scientists are now realizing that even so-called junk dna might have a purpose) or actively damage the previously functional dna sequences. The handful of examples they have of a mutation being "beneficial" have the same problem as micro-evolution, it's still a loss of the original (good) data. For example, when bacteria become drug resistant, it is often because a mutation caused damage to a part of the cell which the drug relies on to function.
On top of that, to create a new, functional organ - or even just a protein - would require the addition or modification of a ludicrously large number of nucleotides in a perfect sequence... without any intermediary stage being deadly... without subsequent mutations undoing previous changes (which they would - mutations are random)... and on top of that, every individual creature that carries this incomplete gene(s) throughout the generations mustn't die by chance before they can pass it on. Only after it becomes functionally beneficial would it have any advantage in selection, and even then would likely be drowned out by the rest of the gene pool.
Also, think of this: they say fish grew legs and walked onto dry land. What about a fish's environment is going to select for legs? What fish is going to develop legs (completely randomly, for millions of years) while living in the water, until they finally become useful enough to use on land? Additionally, legs by themselves would not be enough; it would also need functional changes to its skin/scales, circulatory system, respiratory system, instincts, eyes, spinal/skeletal structure, digestive system, etc. before the fish could even attempt using them.
It's ridiculous to think that life could come from rock soup (abiogenesis). Scientists have tried, repeatedly, to create the 20 amino acids that comprise life from nonliving matter in a laboratory, and have only succeeded with a couple of them (don't remember exact amount) under ideal laboratory conditions. It would have been impossible to get even that much under the NON-ideal conditions of the hypothetical primordial earth.
Sorry the note's running so long. Lots more I could talk about, but I'll cut it short here.
TLDR: Micro-evolution happens, all other kinds of evolution are bogus.
However, this is simply a narrowing of the gene pool. No new data was created in the process. It results in less diversity of traits/genetics within a population, which CAN help the population survive better under specific environmental pressures. BUT, each successive generation does not "gain" any new functional organs, structures, proteins, etc. Instead, each successive generation is, on average, slightly weaker or more sickly if you disregard any environmental factors. An example would be chihuahuas, which have been (artificially) selected for being small and cute. Their survival is dependent on being cute enough a human will take care of them, but in absolute terms, they are far less capable of survival and more illness-prone than wolves. You can think of micro-evolution like very slow inbreeding on the scale of a whole species.
Evolutionists like to set up a straw-man argument: that creationists believe God created every single species in Genesis 1, and they all remain unchanged until this day. The reality is that "species" is a modern idea, and Genesis only says God created the "kinds" of animals. This even supports the story of Noah's Ark, with it only needing space for 2 of each KIND of animal (also excluding things like fish or bugs, which could survive the flood regardless). As an aside, Noah probably took juveniles instead of adults, too.
God created his animals with a perfect, fully formed, fully functional genetic code, with sufficient generic diversity already present for a large population to develop before inbreeding became an issue. As a result of generations of mutations and lost generic diversity from micro-evolution, today's species are both inferior to and more numerous than their original ancestral "kinds" that God created.
What biblical creationists do NOT believe in are macro-evolution, abiogenesis, cosmic evolution, or the big bang.
Macro-evolution would require the addition of functional genetic data. Evolutionists ascribe this to mutations. In reality, mutations either have no visible effect ("junk" dna changes - though scientists are now realizing that even so-called junk dna might have a purpose) or actively damage the previously functional dna sequences. The handful of examples they have of a mutation being "beneficial" have the same problem as micro-evolution, it's still a loss of the original (good) data. For example, when bacteria become drug resistant, it is often because a mutation caused damage to a part of the cell which the drug relies on to function.
On top of that, to create a new, functional organ - or even just a protein - would require the addition or modification of a ludicrously large number of nucleotides in a perfect sequence... without any intermediary stage being deadly... without subsequent mutations undoing previous changes (which they would - mutations are random)... and on top of that, every individual creature that carries this incomplete gene(s) throughout the generations mustn't die by chance before they can pass it on. Only after it becomes functionally beneficial would it have any advantage in selection, and even then would likely be drowned out by the rest of the gene pool.
Also, think of this: they say fish grew legs and walked onto dry land. What about a fish's environment is going to select for legs? What fish is going to develop legs (completely randomly, for millions of years) while living in the water, until they finally become useful enough to use on land? Additionally, legs by themselves would not be enough; it would also need functional changes to its skin/scales, circulatory system, respiratory system, instincts, eyes, spinal/skeletal structure, digestive system, etc. before the fish could even attempt using them.
It's ridiculous to think that life could come from rock soup (abiogenesis). Scientists have tried, repeatedly, to create the 20 amino acids that comprise life from nonliving matter in a laboratory, and have only succeeded with a couple of them (don't remember exact amount) under ideal laboratory conditions. It would have been impossible to get even that much under the NON-ideal conditions of the hypothetical primordial earth.
Sorry the note's running so long. Lots more I could talk about, but I'll cut it short here.
TLDR: Micro-evolution happens, all other kinds of evolution are bogus.