Because there is no evidence that it does. Scientists have performed countless experiments on fruit flies and bacteria, exposing them to all kinds of environmental stress over hundreds or thousands of generations, and yet, even though the organisms mutate, they do not mutate into another species entirely.
Mutations are far more likely to be neutral, harmful or fatal, than beneficial. In fact, cells have defenses and repair mechanisms against mutation!
Why would cells have such defenses against mutations if mutations were necessary for evolution?
Relying on random mutation as the engine that drives evolutionary changes is definitely a weak point in the theory of evolution.
*sigh*
You really are scientifically ignorant, aren't you. First of all, 100 generations isn't much. That you expect a new species within 100 generations is idiotic. 100 generations ago, Jesus had still been dead. If 100 generations is long enough for a new species to evolve, then we should be a new species from what Jesus was.
Secondly, as stated before, and something you still can't wrap your little brain around, speciation takes a LONG time. Not 20 or 30 years in a lab, which really doesn't result in many more generations than in the outside world. i.e. if you were studying humans in a lab, do you really think you could get 40 generations of humans over the course of a few months in a lab? Or, do you think that humans would tend to produce a new generation at roughly the same rate as we do in the non-lab setting?
Further, the reasons for speciation are MANY gradual changes. Fruit flies have been exposed to various environmental stressors. And when that happens, we DO see evolution. Microevolution to you, but there's really no difference (see red/blue text far above in the thread.)
Nonetheless, you seem to be making the claim that humans have never observed speciation - this simply isn't a true claim. (I know that you'll see the website and ignore it; however, please note that it gives a list of the research that was done. You have 3 choices - you can do the tedious task of tracking down the actual research that they're quoting, you can reasonably reason that "okay, well I guess there have been a few cases." Or, you can stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala there aren't any cases because it would disagree with my world view."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Evolution and the Earth being flat are very common. Both have been "proven" and stated as "fact" .... based on the knowledge of the time. When the Earth being flat was just accepted, the thought of going into space, or analyzing the stars and the moon and understanding what they are was unheard of. Eventually with more knowledge and technology they were able to disprove it.
Perhaps one day, evolution and/or the big bang (they tend to go together, but don't have to) will be fully proved... or disproved. Though it is a much more complex theory so I don't imagine any major breakthroughs any time soon.
I'm hungry for a banana. Guess since that craving is in me, we must come from monkeys. How many people don't like bananas, really? I think it's solid proof right there that we come from monkeys.
Look, you're a reasonably likeable person here. Don't make an idiot of yourself. Evolution and the Big Bang are "related" for one and only one reason - they both contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible. Furthermore, "the Earth being flat" is a red herring or straw man argument or whatever (I get some of those FALSE things backwards sometimes.) The only people who ever believed the Earth was flat were ignorant commoners.
You would apparently believe the fairy tale that Columbus was guessing that the Earth is round, but everyone else thought it was flat. Wrong. While some people might have thought that the earth was flat back then is possible. The argument against Columbus was that the Earth was TOO big to sail around. The scientists back then (and dating back before Jesus) had already measured how big the Earth was - with pretty good accuracy in fact. And, they were right. Columbus was a fool who got lucky that there was a continent in the way. Think about it - if North America was just ocean, he'd have to sail the entire width of the Atlantic, then the entire width of NA, then the entire width of the Pacific. He's going to die.
Facebook
Twitter