Jake, all you have proven is adaptation. No person will reject the fact of adaptation.The problem with the theory of evolution (remember, it is just a theory -- and a poor one) is that it says that animals actually evolve into OTHER ANIMALS. What you have shown above is that dogs "evolve" into different types of dogs, not that dogs can become another species.Secondly, evolution is impossible because of the simple fact that one species cannot mate with another and produce potent offspring. (Horses and donkeys can mate, but mules are sterile, for example.) In order for evolution to be correct, there would have to be the exact same change from one species to another in several animals of the same generation, at the same time, and in the same place. Otherwise, this newly developed species would simply die out because it cannot mate with another animal -- the egg will simply not receive sperm from another species. Science has yet to demonstrate that this can even happen.Thirdly, not even humanist scientists will take a stand for gradual evolution (as opposed to gradual adaptation, which you have shown above). The theory has developed into a "punctuated equilibrium" model that essentially has animals not evolving for thousands or millions of years and then basically a "warp" in which animals suddenly become a different species all at once. This is because there is no proof for gradual evolution -- they admit this. They therefore have, in order to place the theory in hypothetical grounds that cannot be scientifically disproven, proposed a theory that is so improbable it would be much more sensible to believe the Genesis account. They also have, in the punctuated equilibrium, posited that we are now in a non-evolving period -- meaning that we will not be able to get anything to evolve in a meaningful way at this period in time. This was done because science realized that it couldn't produce evolution in a laboratory (animals have anti-evolution safeguards in their genetics -- like the egg not taking sperm from another species), and they needed a way to explain why we can't witness evolution now. Brilliant move, but it takes evolution out of the realm of believability and demonstrates all the more how it is a religion of its own.Finally, evolution is an attack against everything Christianity must take for granted in order for Christ to be anything meaningful at all. First of all, if evolution is correct, there is no such thing as "sinful behavior," because we were not created in the image of God with his own commands on our hearts. Rather, we are the descendants of beasts, meaning that whatever we do (be it homosexuality, bestiality, murder, etc.) is simply a part of our nature -- something we naturally do and not inherently wrong. What is labeled "sin" is actually simple social convention, developed to protect the species at large. God and redemption are therefore ruled out.If you are to "believe" in Christ, perhaps you should believe what he said. Remember that he cited the Genesis account as literally true in the Gospels. Paul also assumes that the Genesis account was true. If you are to disagree with them, you do not believe Jesus, after all. Take your pick: disbelieve the Son of God, his apostles, and all the prophets; or disbelieve humanist scientists who are attempting to re-write history in order to remove their responsibility for sin. If you choose the second, have fun on this earth, for animals do not have eternal souls -- at least as far as science has found. In addition, if you choose the second, you reserve the right for yourself to be called "fool," not only by men, but by the Word of God both now and at the judgment."The fool has said in his heart, "NO! God."
