bill [and joe likes] -i should have thought that my mentioning of deep time demonstates that i am not claiming you believe that one creature turns into another overnight.my contention is that their is their are limits to adaption and that new information would need to be somehow taken into the creature[s.s.s.s ad nauseum]and so far as i know that has not been demonstrated
"some"is it not true that MOST mutations are not beneficial,and that the ones that are have not been shown to confer the new information required to advance beyond the confines of the animal in question.
what is interesting is the more or less exactness of fossils alledgedly MYO with modern creatures,and "lazarus taxa" ,those thoght to have gone extinct in deep time appearing looking much like the fossil specimens.
" 99%"
a- does that mean that nearly all scientists are involved in origins research.i thought we had already agreed that useful,operational science is done whatever the beliefs of the scientist.
b- if evolution does have imput into useful science,i invite you again to demonstrate such.i have already demonstrated how it has hindered it.or maybe how the great creationist scientists of yesteryear [or today] have hindered useful science ?.