It would seem to be a similar case for evolution. In our world there are many varied and diverse species. Science has been insofar unable to properly determine the origin of life but it's workin on it. While it is true that a properly diverse species will eventually tend towards a very homogenous single genetic group, certain things must be taken ito consideration. This will only happen if interbreeding is encouraged, possible, and done consistently. In today's society of near racial equality and acceptance, our society will likely tend towards a single race species. However, in the past races have infrequently interbred and when it comes to animals or past species, often times one kind will be wiped out, or isolated, or simply can't reproduce properly. This leads to isolated unique groupings which can no longer move towards a homogenous species. looking at the diversity of animals on the earth, it is hard to believe chance situations of separation and difficulty of reproduction could really cause it but this is a huge timeframe were talking about here.
Now Daniel, I have to say I'm not liking the random bits of uncoordinated information you keep using. Let me just put up a couple things that pissed me off about your post
1) Gluons- You seem to think that gluons are imaginary fudge factors invented by particle physicists to explain things that fucked with their theories. I'd like to tell you a story of something called "The Ether".When Einstein first started toying with electro-magnetic radiation (light) who couldn't understand how a wave could travel ina vaccuum. So he proposed something called the ether. The ether was an undetectable medium permiating the entire universe and what light propagated through. This was another example of a fudge factor. However, a few simple tests were later conducted which disproved the existence of the ether and that was that. Einstein claimed it was his greatest blunder and moved on. See no Gluons are kinda the same with one major difference. Some really smart people began playing around with particle accelerators to see if they existed and low and behold some gluons started showing up all over the place. So I'm not entirely sure wher you got the whole there's no evidence thing, unless yur posting from around the mid-seventies, which would actually explain alot of the hideousely wrong information you keep gabbing about.
2)Particles aren't complex?- Why you think this I have no idea. As far as fundamental particles go, there are 12 quarks, 12 leptons and all their anti-particles. So that leaves 48 fundamental particles floating around which we have to assume must be doing something other than posting dumbass facts on a forum. And these guys don't even obey normal laws. I mean these things are ten-dimensional string particles, they're up to cool shit all the time. Entire branches of science are dedicated to the study of the complexities of particles so why do you say this.
3)Viruses aren't alive-Granted life is a bit of a tricky thing to define but currently I'd have to say viruses fit the definition. They replicate, react, consume, and adapt. And viruses are one of the best and most successful forms of life out there. They adapt to new environments almost instantaneousely and some kinds can be self sustaining. So while I am forced to assume you are an intelligent person, I must also assume that you don't really think viruses aren't alive. I think what you really mean is that viruses aren't intelligent. And if this is true, I am forced to agree. I often find myself wanting more from a conversation with a virus, I've never been beaten by one at chess, and all the ones I know never made the entrance avgs to university so granted they are dumbfucks. But they're still alive, I mean people work on ways to kill viruses all the time and it's hard to kill something that was never alive.
4) Daniel shoots himself in the foot - belive it or not I feel this phrase embodies your use of moths. For one, you seem to think that industrial evolutionists used this example to prove this theory. No no no. They created this example so that simple-minded folk who didn't understand complex science could understand what they were talking about. It's like schrodinger and his cat. It's a thought experiment, designed to give a more tangible understanding to a difficult concept. Interestingly enough, schrodinger used his cat to make fun of quantum mechanics and the fact that it was used as a dumbed down example of it pissed the hell out of him. And the point of the moths is to limit the options so it's easy to understand. There were of course some grey moths around at the time and this all goes back to the evolution thing that I really don't want to go into again. I hope your ealize that you tried to use a well-thought of example of evolution to disprove it. Not the best of ideas really.
And now I'm tired of this. When you post in response or even when you post next. Please for the love of whatever god you feel supports your beliefs, try to only use information you are sure of. talking about things you don't understand makes you look like a dumbass and makes me have to redefine my definition of blatent ignorance (you're lowering the bar btw). toodle-pip