I wasn't saying that there is an exact consistent correlation between lines of latitude and skin colour, just a general visible trend of skin colours being more suitable to the environments.
Well we both agree that there's only been 6000 years of variation, I see the possiblities (just through continuous variation) for new species. How would you prove macro-evolution is impossible over millions of years, knowing the extent of variations over thousands of years? Is this based on the fact that you have not yet observed it over 6000 years?
Easy, there was no "millions of years" so that kind of refutes by itself. I base this on the fact that there are observed fossilised trees running through multiple stratas which were dated to be separated by "millions of years". This concisely debunks the claim of millions of years. If you have definitive evidence of millions of years please show it.
Seriously though, if you read my post before you'd know the answer
Variations are not the same as macro-evolution. Macro changes ie- fish to mammal require completely new systems. Variations of the same system will not give rise to a completely new system, (and if you claim as such I'd like to see the evidence first).
IC systems cannot be changed to become another over time, it defies logic. An analogy for this would be attempting to convert a motor engine running on petrol to gas whilst it is still running. However even this analogy is stacked in the evolutionists favour since its still an engine and thus performs the same function. An even better analogy would be to convert a toaster into a washing machine.
Keep in mind that for each small step there must be a fitness benefit, otherwise it will not be selected for and thus defy the evolution concept anyway. Yet considering the nature of these IC systems all parts are required in order for there to be any benefit at all.
Consider the supposed transition of the fish to mammal, here is a list of the changes required before it could live successfully on land.
1- "evolve" legs
2. "evolve" support structure to hold body weight on legs
3- "evolve" nerves and brain function to control legs
4- "evolve" lungs
5- "evolve" brain function for autonomous lung function
6- "evolve" different digestive system + eating habits to survive eating the different food available
7- "evolve" protection to the sun, (since the fish is now out of the refracting water which protects it)
8- "evolve" different location of spine- running along the back not through the middle like most fish
9- "evolve" a mate at the same time in the same whereabouts for this mammal-fish to propogate...
Now consider all these things (bar 9) are required on DAY 1 of being a mammal-fish, no lungs it suffocates, no legs cannot walk, etc
How would this occur? Either it "evolved" straight away or it occured before. Now it can't have occurred straight away as that defies the original evolutionary concept (and is part of the "hopeful monster" idea), so if it occured before DAY 1 of being a mammal-fish, how was it selected for?
Consider that each step must have an advantage otherwise it will not be selected for (this is the evolutionists own rule). Hence all these things could not have "evolve" before they were required as there is no selection advantage to account for this. Actually having lungs when you live in the ocean 100% of the time isn't a great idea, (drowning and all that), as well as the spine moving beforehand would impede how the fish swam... (SO a decrease in fitness)
All in all evolution is just wishful thinking