(Response to JohnYak)
"Darwin evolution"? Evolution is evolution, creatures adapting to their environments was exactly what Darwin studied and reported, what are you even talking about?"
Adaptation is real. It selects on genes already present. Darwinian evolution requires addition of genetic information. Entirely new systems (lungs instead of gills) can't be produced in a single-gene-mutation, stepwise fashion. And it has never been observed. Again, Darwin requires the addition of new genes. Natural selection selects genes *already present*. Those are completely different mechanisms, so to describe them both as "evolution" is false and misleading. Even Berkeley says they don't know how complex systems can evolve.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50
(Response to Octavia_Melody)
"Evolution is change over time. Charles Darwin helped to come up with the theory of evolution by means of natural selection."
As I said, adaptation is real. It selects on genes already present. Darwinian evolution requires addition of genetic information. Entirely new systems can't be produced in a single-gene-mutation, stepwise fashion.
"It's not 100% proof, but it's very strong evidence."
So fossils of animals that have similar traits to other animals is "strong evidence."
"Scientists have observed new species being created in nature and in the laboratory."
Not sure exactly what you refer to, but if it's making one virus into another in a laboratory, this only highlights the point I make. Calling the adaptation of one virus into another virus a new "species" is misleading. It is adaptation. Manipulation of the existing gene pool. Nothing new has been created. It isn't making a new system, it's combinging genes that already exist. When an entirely new system is observed, along the lines of feathers on fish, get back to me. Meanwhile, a lot of people have been mislead into believing that science has actually observed the random emergence of entirely new complex systems. No. And if you read critically, even evolutionists will tell you so. See Evolution 101
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50
"But they weren't. They were a side branch of human ancestry."
That's what you've been told.