It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Evolution explains the change of organisms, and here’s the key part, IN A POPULATION. Therefore, you see that generation after generation, there are changes in the population.
Gregor Mendel did not discover recombination. You’re mixing recombination with recessive traits. Gregor Mendel’s greatest contribution to genetics is the fact that he is the FATHER of genetics. He’s the one who started the concept. Recombination is just another aspect of more complicated organisms.
Your example of sugar beets and finches actually proves the science of evolution. The selective breeding that occurs is in fact an evolution of a population. Scientists have done breeding all the time to even produce new species:
What is amazing about the information you spew to me is how you misinterpret and bastardize the information to conform to your own assurances that genetics disprove evolution. Meanwhile, for some reason, God made it look like we have in fact we have one origin from each other. I find it quite interesting that God would make a fool out of us by showing the consistency of the genetic evidence of all organisms only just to say that He made everyone to their own kind. If everyone was made to their own kind in the way you interpret it, we wouldn’t be able to build such a genetic “family tree” of all the species of the earth. But it just so happens that the more genomes we find, the more it CONFIRMS evolutionary science’s predictions.
But if we take your view of science, the science of breeding for instance, the prediction would be that there would be no new species. As I have shown, there are cases of new species, and here’s some more, which includes a refutation of the false claim that scientists were not able to produce new species of drosophila or moths:
And if you do a pubmed search, you will find more of these, as this website does not regularly update its lists.
When it comes to genetics, MOST mutations are NEITHER harmful NOR beneficial, BUT neutral. And GUESS WHAT, not 100% of your genes are exactly that of your mom and dad’s. Random point mutations occur as well in your parent’s gametes. This is where mutation occurs. We have cases of beneficial mutations and cases of harmful mutations. Why is that the harmful mutations get most of the press? Because we are humans made in the Image of God, and we want to help treat diseases, and those genetically inherited diseases are not excluded. In the animal world, an animal born with a genetic defect will suffer, and you will see the truth that there is in fact an equal number of mutations that can be considered “beneficial” as well as “harmful” among those populations. However, the benefit sometimes is not clear unless you challenge them in an environment. As you so well put, there are some mutations considered “harmful” in some environments that are beneficial in others. That is not to the exclusion of the fact that there are mutations that do add information:
So the idea that mutations “always” subtract something is not true. There is evidence that there are new structures, new additions, and stronger fitness. Imagine if we ever find out the gene that makes a very small number of smokers able to smoke for 90 years without cancer or COPD.
God is not a charlatan. The evidence is clear. The only people who wish to try to make the evidence unclear are those who misinterpret the Bible or those who are getting paid by those who misinterpret the Bible. The websites you read are major frauds and I’m sad that many people like you, many sincere people like you are fooled by such nonsense. Dr. Kenneth Miller shares his story of how he debunked Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity of Behe (who by the way does not deny common ancestry of apes and humans):