Evolution is a Fraud

 Of course they think they have evidence for evolution.  They've coopted it from ordinary variation within the genome of a species, simply included that as a phase in evolurtion from species to species to species although there is no evidence for that, only for the variation we all know existds within a given speciea.  

Word mai, just difine things according to your prejudcice, which begs the question and eliminated your competition which defines them differently, and voila, a whole scientific field treated as establsished dogma.  Yep, evolution.

They defne evolution as change in a population over time.  Golly gosh, but creationists know there is change in populations over time, we know it to be variation within a species and only within a species and it's not evolution.  

the one thing the purveyors of this intellectual fraud don't do is provide evidence that it is possible to turns turn a enome into another genome, that is, turn one species into another.  They don't need to pbother, there's so much they can csay about the variations that we know occur all the time within a species and as along as they are calling that evolution they never have to bother proving that there are actual changes that lead to new species.

Of the sily fine species in a way that cooptes the point.  Speciation is the simply inability to interbreed with a former population that can ovccur when two populations of the same species get isolated from each other for some great noumber of generations.  The genome can undergo enough change to make repruduction impossible between the, and this they define as speciaition which they regard as a step to evolution, a step on that very path.  

This is intellectual fraud.  Perhaps in a way more or less innocent since they really believe this stuff, but it's false and they never do anything to deal with the fact that they haven't shown and can't show any change on the order of magnitude that they claim to be the case in say the fossil record.  they get only as far as two species of bird simply because although those two birds look almost identical they can't interbreed so they call it evolution.  or two species of frog or anything else that has been separatied longenough from others of that species to have lost the bability to interbreed.  

This is not evolution and it's a fraud to claim that it is.

You need to show that it's possible for a change to occur...EVER...that could change traits in a genome to such an extent that it is no longer the genome of the species it started out to be.

This is impossible but they will deny it and just go on in their delusion while at the same time vilifying us creationists for daring to point it out.

Dawkins, Clyne, all of them, are guilty of committing this fraud.

Gene flow is called a mechanism of evolution.  This is ridiculous.  You've got a dooo  dog breed and a bunch of them get loose and migle with the dog populationin general.  that's gene flow and it doesn't produce evolution, it causes the breed to revert to something more like the original dog population whatever that was.    Gene flow doesn't add anything, it merely ireintroduces what was orignally there.

And so on and so forth.  I could write a book if I were thirty years younger and not legally blind.