Can any of you give me the name of an animal that started as one animal, then became a completely different animal. As in catfish becomes seagull, or frog becomes sloth, or termite becomes turtle.
Now, if we were to present a creationist with that description of creationist beliefs, we would be harshly chastised for inventing ludicrous evolutionist strawman argument, like if we were to present the "why are there still apes?" argument. And yet you are not only presenting that exact same "evolutionist strawman" as a serious argument, but you have repeatedly insisted that we present you with evidence supporting that "evolutionist strawman".
You have already been informed many times over that what you describe is not at all what evolution says would happen. Not even close. But that begs the question that you need to answer: Why do you think that that describes how evolution should work? Where did you learn that? When you were taught that, how did they support what they were telling you? Could you please explain to us why what you have present describes how evolution should work?
There should be no reason for you to not answer those questions. You demand a straight answer (which you have received, even though you cannot recognize it as such), so you should be ready and willing to provide a straight answer to the questions asked of you. The difference between us is that my questions are very reasonable.
In the meantime -- and anticipating that Theodoric is correct in Message 48 and you're just a typical young creationist "run-by fruiting" (to borrow from Mrs. Doubtfire, though that term greatly elevates what you are thought to be doing) -- , I would like to try to summarize and add to what the others have tried to tell you. Especially Warthog and frako, the former for his great description and the latter for introducing you to the important realization and idea of nested hierarchies.
Your description of how evolution should work is sheer nonsense, so much so that you should not be the least bit surprised that it leaves us all staring at you as if antlers were growing out of your ears. I cannot even begin to imagine any misrepresentation of Christianity that any of us could come up with that would be the equal to your misrepresentation of evolution. "Completely and utterly bizarre" would be extremely mild.
An operative definition of evolution is "descent with modification from a common ancestor". If it would at all help, my own view of evolution is that it's the population-level cumulative effects of what happens when life does what life does. Your ludicrous "As in catfish becomes seagull, or frog becomes sloth, or termite becomes turtle" flies completely in the face of life doing what life does, along with everything else that the theory of evolution says.
In Message 66, frako presented you with the nested hierarchies of which we humans are a part. We humans are all animals, and nested within that we are also all chordates (vertebrates, those of us who actually have a backbone -- OK, actually, not all chordates, those with a dorsal notochord -- ie, a dorsal neural cord -- , have vertebrae), and nested within that we all have crania (skulls), and nested within that we all are tetrapods (have four limbs), and nested within that we all are mammals, and nested within that we all are primates (which itself is nested within nesting within nesting, etc, under the Theriiformes subclass of the class Mammalia), and nested within that we all are Haplorrhini, Simiiformes, Catarrhini, Hominoidea, Hominidae (narrowing down to the great apes), and nested within that we all are Homininae (narrowing down to a common ancestor with gorillas, but not with orangutans), and nested within that we all are Hominini (which includes chimpanzees, but not gorillas), and nested within that we all are Hominina, Homo, and finally the species Homo sapiens sapiens.
OK, here's a bit of creationist nonsense that I've heard shouted repeatedly over the years: whenever a new species of, say a moth, came into existence, creationists would always shout "But they are still moths!" Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, Oscar? What else would they be? According to your ridiculous claim, they should have become kitty-cats? Why? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever! HINT: this is the point where we have no other choice but to try to slap some kind of sense into your poor deluded head. The offspring of every generation is still part of the nested hierarchy of its parents. Very similar to its parents, yet also different. And as different sub-populations of those offspring diversify even further, some of them can go on to form their own sub-hierarchy within the parent hierarchy. And so on, which is the way that evolution is supposed to work.
In the ancestral chordata (dorsal notochord; the other body plan has a ventral notocord -- check out an insect or shrimp some day), what happened when they reproduced? All their offspring were also chordata. But over time, some of those offspring developed vertebrae (the bones that surround your spinal cord and form your spinal column, AKA "back-bone), while others did not. Did chordata give birth to non-chordata? No! And when the "stem reptiles" split off into the different branches of reptile, including Therapsida, which were ancestral to mammals, what were their offspring? The same as their parents, though slightly different as happens in every single generation. And so on.
I have so often seen creationists go on about "kinds only reproducing after their own kinds" and claiming that evolution is different. But it's not. Evolution follows that "rule" just as much and even more. The only difference is that while creationism arbitrarily defines completely separate "kinds", evolution uncovers the nested hierarchies of the actual "kinds". As verified through protein comparisons.
So then, "catfish becomes seagull"? Bullshit! Different nested hierarchies! "frog becomes sloth"? Bullshit! Different nested hierarchies! "termite becomes turtle"? Bullshit! Different nested hierarchies!
What part of "different nested hierarchies" do you not understand?