Evolution of peppered moths and walking sticks

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2013/10/09/evolution-in-color-from-peppered-moths-to-walking-sticks/

Here is an article that demonstrates natural selection. The moths and the walking sticks collectively adapted to their environment, because the bugs without the favorable trait were much less likely to be eaten by prey. Thus, they were able to pass down their genes and cause a change in the population (evolution).

I do believe in micro evolution 

I think the dog breads prove that

I didn’t realize you had any belief in evolution. But it’s cool that you’ve accepted at least some things about evolution based on facts.

Yes I do. I think DNA has limits tho. I mean dog DNA will stay dog DNA and can not turn into fish DNA. Far as I know. Maybe wolves and hyenas had a common ancestor. I'm yet to see how how it can change to a completely different kind of animal.

I don’t think any reasonable person thinks that dogs will evolve into fish.

Mutations, very small DNA errors, happen in every organism and are passed down to their offspring, and contribute to the evolution of a population. If two populations of a species are isolated from each other for a long enough time, there could be so many mutations in each population that members of one population will no longer be able to produce offspring with members of another population. Thus, there is a creation of new species.

Mutations just rearrange DNA, right?

There are many types of mutations. The following article shows what they are. I think the easiest way to read and understand the article is to click on the blue underlined link. They will each open a diagram.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations

The main idea about mutations is that every organism’s DNA have errors that may have a harmful affect, advantageous effect, or no effect. I think that’s all one needs to understand in order to have a general understanding of mutations.

Plus their role in evolution.

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/   

But we do not have billions of years to work with. The earth is young 

It's obvious that "evidence 5" is garbage. Over human history, many children didn't make it to adulthood. There was a lot of disease and starvation that kept the population from exploding, which has only happened recently after technological advances, modern medicine and agriculture. Also, the human population grew faster once nomadic tribes settled, which is still fairly recent compared to the entire human history. As far as I know, the person who wrote the answering genesis made up the population growth rate on the spot.

The following is population data produced by a department from the University of Oxford. 

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

I looked up the claim about the dinosaurs, and found an article: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/ The author of the answeringenesis article completely twisted what the paleontologist discovered.

The author of the answeringenesis article tried to use science to refute scientific claims, but also admitted that they were anti-science at the end of the article.

I could look up information to refute the remainder of the answeringenesis article, but I'd rather focus my energy on other things. Two incorrect out of six claims and the denial of science is enough to discredit the author of the article.

No. Mutations also ADD DNA as well. (Google ERV's, for one example.)

Humans have the exact same DNA coding, to grow tails, that monkeys have. That DNA is still there.

But Humans have additional DNA as well, which suppress those tail-genes.

The DNA didn't disappear. It just got "switched off."

(And on the rarest of occasions, those "suppressor genes" will fail, and a baby will be born, with a monkey tail. But that is very rare, indeed.) 

But there are times, Mutations will subtract DNA as well.

Or as you said, rearrange.

All different kinds of mutations out there.

Ken Ham is a shyster bilking retiree's out of the pension funds to build a water park. He can afford to ignore the evidence.

That why nobody will ever take him seriously.

Science theories need to adapt, to match the evidence. To change the evidence, to match the theory.

I know a lot of people who take him seriously 

Yes, your probaly right about population thing.

I think I know what you mean. The answeringenesis author was starting with the claim that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, then found whatever information they could to support that claim; rather than going in the opposite direction and starting with the evidence first; which means that the author’s method wasn’t scientific. Is that what you meant?

It's all about what you start off believing. It will take a lot more they a pretend geologic column full of inconsistencies and "missing links" that could easily have been created that way and then gone extinct if there not hoxes all together to make me change my mind on genesis. So fare that is the only evidence I've heard.

Also there's the stare light thing. But we do not know if light travels at the same speed throughout the universe so that's not rock solid either.

I’d say it’s more about what makes sense to a person. To me, the scientific philosophy makes more sense than creationism. To me, science is about something existing and people uncovering more about it. And then, as a result, these scientists contribute to an accumulation of knowledge. To me, creationism is like someone waving a wand and saying, “abra kadabra.” And tada! Things just magically appear.