no it is ASSUMED to be large genetic changes over time and more ASSUMPTIONS that one being transformed into another, with nothing more than the ideology that demands that change...thus evolutionism is considered true.
not a science, but a religion.
Large genetic changes have been observed, not just assumed.
Consider and compare: any number of domesticated plant and animal species -- even before the current age of direct genetic modifications -- to their wild cousins.
DNA analyses easily show how different domesticated animals are from their wild cousins.
Yes, most can still interbreed, but we are only talking about a few thousand years of, shall we call it, "un-natural selection," meaning humans doing the work that was previously done by nature.
Or, as I prefer to think of it, by God.
Consider: observed fossil records and DNA analyses show different species in the Family of Zebras, Horses and Donkey's were first separated about 4 million years ago -- and yet they can still at least partially interbreed. Indeed, three separate Species of Zebras easily interbreed.
Consider: another example which has been observed in nature, not just assumed, is a hybrid of Polar Bear and Grisly Bear.
These are certainly different species, but closely related enough to still produce offspring.
By contrast, no offspring has ever been observed of Polar Bear and, say, Black Bear.
So, those species split apart too long ago.
Is there any example of a species separated by more than 4 million years from another, and yet still able to successfully interbreed?
Not that I know of.
So we might conclude that it can take some millions of years of separation before two different species have definitely become different "kinds."
But "kinds" is a religious classification, not a scientific classification.
In science we speak of terms like Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species.
These are defined scientifically, and not one, to my knowledge, corresponds with the biblical term "kind."
raygunfan: "not a science, but a religion."
Finally, you assert that science is just a "religion."
Well, anyone can play the definition-of-terms game.
But if science is "just a religion," then so is everything else we think we know, which would have to mean: those terms have no real definitions.
So, the truth of the matter is: there's a vast difference between science and religion, and to call one the other is simply inaccurate.