Quote:

All of the examples on the site can easily be explained by simple variations already programmed in the original genetic material of the organism which natural selection just widdled down, if you will. To say that a creature can adapt to changing environments is to agree with creationists. To say that that e coli will ever become anything except e coli no matter how long you give it, is just conjecture



Certainly not easily. When trying to explain away all observable evolution evidence with simple selection, you are forced to assume that species already have all those features already hidden in their DNA - loss of eyes, color change, whatever.

For what purpose would a bacteria need resistence against penicillin hidden in its genes? Bacteria were never confronted with penicillin until the 20th century. For what purpose would E.coli need a mechanism to survive 32° or 42° temperatures? They are normally never confronted with such temperatures in their environment.

Sure, you could assume that a benevolent creator would have foreseen that man will invent penicillin and would have given bacteria a potential resistance against it. But that's hardly a scientific explanation.

Attempts to explain such observations with just natural selection require assuming a very complex DNA with all sorts of hidden properties and features to be switched on when necessary. This looks like a very unlikely explanation to me - much more unlikely than the nucleotide change required for a good mutation. And how about virae that we _know_ to be able to develop into a completely different species by adopting foreign DNA parts into their own DNA? And how about all the evidence that mutation definitely exists? What mechanism should prevent good mutations?

You're of course free to ignore all evolution evidence or declare it "worthless". But withouth backing this with halfway likely alternative explanations, you're out of the field of science and deep in the field of faith.