No, adaptation within species is an argument by association. Which is the weakest form of argument.
The ability of a computer program to adapt to differing conditions and random inputs also has to be programmed in.
When moderns look at the fossil record they assume that similarities between species implies that evolution was the cause.
But see, now we are getting glimpses into the complexity of the genome, which is complex beyond all imagining. No serious mind can look at the human genome or bovine genome and walk away from that knowledge thinking that any of it arose from inorganic chemistry and random unguided processes.
Charles Darwin was an ignorant fool, and those who continue his stupid legacy do so in the face of mountains of information theory that have come to light in the last 100 years.
I know my first parents by name. That little rib thingy that God took from Adam to make Eve, what do you think it was? I’ll tell you, it was an X chromosome. Moses was shown it, had to write about it in language that mankind would comprehend, knowing that we would not see it for thousands of years.
Here is a prediction of mine. As scientists continue to crawl over the human genome they will find a counter that increments by one every time a generation has occurred. When that happens, each person will be able to have their DNA examined, telling them how many generations have passed up until now. That number will not correspond to millions and millions of generations.
OK, so I "get" that you took Philosophy 101 and now consider yourself a licensed master of philosophical insults, such as "argument by association... the weakest..."
In fact, my example of creating the new species of dogs from wolves has nothing to do with "association", but rather observed fact, we know for certain it happened.
And that helps confirm the theory of how these things work, evolution theory.
blackpacific: "No serious mind can look at the human genome or bovine genome and walk away from that knowledge thinking that any of it arose from inorganic chemistry and random unguided processes."
Well, organic chemistry, of course.
As for "guided", if you put raw materials in a chemical reaction chamber, and use it to create new compounds, is that not "guided"?
So, if God puts His raw materials into His reaction chamber (Earth) and creates new living organisms, using evolution among other processes, is that not also "guided"?
blackpacific: "Charles Darwin was an ignorant fool, and those who continue his stupid legacy do so in the face of mountains of information theory that have come to light in the last 100 years."
And they taught you this form of argumentation in that same Philosophy 101 class??
In my classes, they called that a false argument, ad hominem and factually in error.
blackpacific: "As scientists continue to crawl over the human genome they will find a counter that increments by one every time a generation has occurred."
I think there are already many such "counters", in the form of more-or-less random mutations in non-coding DNA which allow us to trace our ancestries back through history and pre-history.
And there are also coding-DNA mutations which can be seen in other species and so allow us tell how closely or distantly various species are related to each other.
blackpacific: "That number will not correspond to millions and millions of generations."
I'd not be surprised if that's true of some "counters", but not of others.