Define “kind.” I assume this is synonymous with “species.”
Define adaptation in distinction to evolution.
I know that you have been asked to define these terms, but I am really looking for a distinction between evolution and adaptation from you. What counts as evolution? The definition you provide must be able to be a metric I can apply to any living creature or plant.
That is not a reasonable form of proof. The experiment is reproducible; the results are not, nor does any evolutionist claim they should be. That is not how science works.
Let me give you a brief analogy. A coin flip is random, yes? You are asking someone to flip a coin and come up with heads over and over again. This is possible but unlikely, and no one would claim to be able to do that because we accept the concept of randomness.
If someone puts forward a theory of evolution that somehow involves randomness, it is irrational on your part to require as a burden of proof that randomness not exist. It is the same as someone claiming that a coin flip will come up heads or tails and you insisting that in order to prove this, they must flip heads over and over again. What you are requiring is not related to what they are arguing.
So, let me rephrase: Assume that evolution involves some level of randomness. What would be sufficient proof for you?
The theory of evolution does not state that a cat turning into a dog is possible. The theory of evolution is not fully predictable, just like a coin toss is not predictable. If you understand science at a basic level, this will not pose a problem for you, but if you are not very good with scientific concepts, I understand your intellectual limitations without judgment.
Could you give me an example involving animals? How would you define their purpose?
No part. They are clearly mutually exclusive, so Genesis and genesis cannot be taken literally. That is my only point.
