RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[neo-x]

DNA is irrelevant...

You have no idea what you're talking about...explains a lot of why you have such misinformed beliefs.

Yes,I do. DNA does not does not demonstrate life evolves. You never explained why speciation is so important to evolutionists after I explained how and why it is a myth. And DNA is irrelevant based on this because scientists are pushing myths like speciation. This means they have no credibility and cannot be trusted about DNA,ancestry gene related,the evolution trre of life,etc. They are pushing myths as true science. Please give an example of my misinformed beliefs about evolution and correct them and prove me wrong if you can. You avoided speciation and why it is so important to evolution and how you know it leads to what they claim it does,still waiting.I know it leads to normal variation amongst each population and so no evolution is possible.

/\
A man goes to see a doctor.
"Doc, I have a serious problem," he says. "When I close my eyes I can't see."
"Well," the doctor says, "you need to open your eyes to see things."
"But I want to see things with my eyes closed."

Your problem is that you want to see things without actually opening up to them. The reason I stopped explaining is because it is clear to me that its very hard to communicate with you since you do not know your subject matter. Speciation is continous evolution in branches. And the normal varation you see can eventually branch out. I suppose you really are expecting a Torse, an offspring of a tiger and a horse. In short, your assumptions are wrong and therefore your expectations are too. Its speciation that eventually led from ape like ancestors to chimps and humans but it took time. Time that you and me don't have. However lucky for us, the answer lies in dna and corresponding evidence like fossil record, chemistry, geology etc.

Let me give you a small experiment, find a new born baby of a few days and put a finger under his/her toes. You will see that the toes will immediately curl around it. Now go and do the same to a chimp baby, it will do exactly the same thing. You know why?
It's because its a reflex instinct left in our dna that still thinks that grabbing to things like trees and shoots and branches help us to stand and walk on two feet. Infact you can see videos of modern apes walking on trees on two legs that they grab the branch with and with their hands they grab the top ones and walk upright.

And this is a small nugget. The evidence is piling up for 150 years and still has to be refuted.

You are assuming they branch out but the evidence shows they do not branch out...

...if you think that I don't understand evolution or you don't believe me then go and look yourself and check...

You obviously don't know as much about evolution as you let on about.

The above are the only three statements in your entire response that I find credible to address.

1. Yes by looking at evidence in DNA and fossils that I know that they branch out. Why? Because DNA branches out.

2. I did and found your beliefs to be very wrong.

3. You are right, I do need to learn more about evolution. I am actually listening to evolution lectures from Yale university as I type this response. Perhaps, you should do the same, you know, acually learn what you are attacking instead of just harping about your beliefs, unfounded in reality, as they are.

[abelcainsbrother]

You have no idea what you're talking about...explains a lot of why you have such misinformed beliefs.

Yes,I do. DNA does not does not demonstrate life evolves. You never explained why speciation is so important to evolutionists after I explained how and why it is a myth. And DNA is irrelevant based on this because scientists are pushing myths like speciation. This means they have no credibility and cannot be trusted about DNA,ancestry gene related,the evolution trre of life,etc. They are pushing myths as true science. Please give an example of my misinformed beliefs about evolution and correct them and prove me wrong if you can. You avoided speciation and why it is so important to evolution and how you know it leads to what they claim it does,still waiting.I know it leads to normal variation amongst each population and so no evolution is possible.

/\
A man goes to see a doctor.
"Doc, I have a serious problem," he says. "When I close my eyes I can't see."
"Well," the doctor says, "you need to open your eyes to see things."
"But I want to see things with my eyes closed."

Your problem is that you want to see things without actually opening up to them. The reason I stopped explaining is because it is clear to me that its very hard to communicate with you since you do not know your subject matter. Speciation is continous evolution in branches. And the normal varation you see can eventually branch out. I suppose you really are expecting a Torse, an offspring of a tiger and a horse. In short, your assumptions are wrong and therefore your expectations are too. Its speciation that eventually led from ape like ancestors to chimps and humans but it took time. Time that you and me don't have. However lucky for us, the answer lies in dna and corresponding evidence like fossil record, chemistry, geology etc.

Let me give you a small experiment, find a new born baby of a few days and put a finger under his/her toes. You will see that the toes will immediately curl around it. Now go and do the same to a chimp baby, it will do exactly the same thing. You know why?
It's because its a reflex instinct left in our dna that still thinks that grabbing to things like trees and shoots and branches help us to stand and walk on two feet. Infact you can see videos of modern apes walking on trees on two legs that they grab the branch with and with their hands they grab the top ones and walk upright.

And this is a small nugget. The evidence is piling up for 150 years and still has to be refuted.

You are assuming they branch out but the evidence shows they do not branch out...

...if you think that I don't understand evolution or you don't believe me then go and look yourself and check...

You obviously don't know as much about evolution as you let on about.

The above are the only three statements in your entire response that I find credible to address.

1. Yes by looking at evidence in DNA and fossils that I know that they branch out. Why? Because DNA branches out.

2. I did and found your beliefs to be very wrong.

3. You are right, I do need to learn more about evolution. I am actually listening to evolution lectures from Yale university as I type this response. Perhaps, you should do the same, you know, acually learn what you are attaching instead of just harping about your beliefs, unfounded in reality, as they are.

I have already been there and done that which is how I know what I know. But don't just believe their preaching about life evolving dig into the evidence they use. If you just listen to the preaching of evolution you can be easily tricked into accepting it.

[neo-x]

Yes,I do. DNA does not does not demonstrate life evolves. You never explained why speciation is so important to evolutionists after I explained how and why it is a myth. And DNA is irrelevant based on this because scientists are pushing myths like speciation. This means they have no credibility and cannot be trusted about DNA,ancestry gene related,the evolution trre of life,etc. They are pushing myths as true science. Please give an example of my misinformed beliefs about evolution and correct them and prove me wrong if you can. You avoided speciation and why it is so important to evolution and how you know it leads to what they claim it does,still waiting.I know it leads to normal variation amongst each population and so no evolution is possible.

/\
A man goes to see a doctor.
"Doc, I have a serious problem," he says. "When I close my eyes I can't see."
"Well," the doctor says, "you need to open your eyes to see things."
"But I want to see things with my eyes closed."

Your problem is that you want to see things without actually opening up to them. The reason I stopped explaining is because it is clear to me that its very hard to communicate with you since you do not know your subject matter. Speciation is continous evolution in branches. And the normal varation you see can eventually branch out. I suppose you really are expecting a Torse, an offspring of a tiger and a horse. In short, your assumptions are wrong and therefore your expectations are too. Its speciation that eventually led from ape like ancestors to chimps and humans but it took time. Time that you and me don't have. However lucky for us, the answer lies in dna and corresponding evidence like fossil record, chemistry, geology etc.

Let me give you a small experiment, find a new born baby of a few days and put a finger under his/her toes. You will see that the toes will immediately curl around it. Now go and do the same to a chimp baby, it will do exactly the same thing. You know why?
It's because its a reflex instinct left in our dna that still thinks that grabbing to things like trees and shoots and branches help us to stand and walk on two feet. Infact you can see videos of modern apes walking on trees on two legs that they grab the branch with and with their hands they grab the top ones and walk upright.

And this is a small nugget. The evidence is piling up for 150 years and still has to be refuted.

You are assuming they branch out but the evidence shows they do not branch out...

...if you think that I don't understand evolution or you don't believe me then go and look yourself and check...

You obviously don't know as much about evolution as you let on about.

The above are the only three statements in your entire response that I find credible to address.

1. Yes by looking at evidence in DNA and fossils that I know that they branch out. Why? Because DNA branches out.

2. I did and found your beliefs to be very wrong.

3. You are right, I do need to learn more about evolution. I am actually listening to evolution lectures from Yale university as I type this response. Perhaps, you should do the same, you know, acually learn what you are attaching instead of just harping about your beliefs, unfounded in reality, as they are.

I have already been there and done that which is how I know what I know. But don't just believe their preaching about life evolving dig into the evidence they use. If you just listen to the preaching of evolution you can be easily tricked into accepting it.

If I did that I would have followed your preaching or various others, quite easily since people who do believe things with their eyes closed will follow anyone as long as they feel like it but one thing good about gaining knowledge and learning is that it allows you to be able to discern sense from nonsense, and you can separate the right ideas from the wrong ones.

[abelcainsbrother]

/\
A man goes to see a doctor.
"Doc, I have a serious problem," he says. "When I close my eyes I can't see."
"Well," the doctor says, "you need to open your eyes to see things."
"But I want to see things with my eyes closed."

Your problem is that you want to see things without actually opening up to them. The reason I stopped explaining is because it is clear to me that its very hard to communicate with you since you do not know your subject matter. Speciation is continous evolution in branches. And the normal varation you see can eventually branch out. I suppose you really are expecting a Torse, an offspring of a tiger and a horse. In short, your assumptions are wrong and therefore your expectations are too. Its speciation that eventually led from ape like ancestors to chimps and humans but it took time. Time that you and me don't have. However lucky for us, the answer lies in dna and corresponding evidence like fossil record, chemistry, geology etc.

Let me give you a small experiment, find a new born baby of a few days and put a finger under his/her toes. You will see that the toes will immediately curl around it. Now go and do the same to a chimp baby, it will do exactly the same thing. You know why?
It's because its a reflex instinct left in our dna that still thinks that grabbing to things like trees and shoots and branches help us to stand and walk on two feet. Infact you can see videos of modern apes walking on trees on two legs that they grab the branch with and with their hands they grab the top ones and walk upright.

And this is a small nugget. The evidence is piling up for 150 years and still has to be refuted.

You are assuming they branch out but the evidence shows they do not branch out...

...if you think that I don't understand evolution or you don't believe me then go and look yourself and check...

You obviously don't know as much about evolution as you let on about.

The above are the only three statements in your entire response that I find credible to address.

1. Yes by looking at evidence in DNA and fossils that I know that they branch out. Why? Because DNA branches out.

2. I did and found your beliefs to be very wrong.

3. You are right, I do need to learn more about evolution. I am actually listening to evolution lectures from Yale university as I type this response. Perhaps, you should do the same, you know, acually learn what you are attaching instead of just harping about your beliefs, unfounded in reality, as they are.

I have already been there and done that which is how I know what I know. But don't just believe their preaching about life evolving dig into the evidence they use. If you just listen to the preaching of evolution you can be easily tricked into accepting it.

If I did that I would have followed your preaching or various others, quite easily since people who do believe things with their eyes closed will follow anyone as long as they feel like it but one thing good about gaining knowledge and learning is that it allows you to be able to discern sense from nonsense, and you can separate the right ideas from the wrong ones.

Yes! And when scientists who believe in evolution have tested different kinds of life and in every case that life remains the same kind of life in its population,whether it can or cannot breed but they tell you it evolved after it only adapted? Red Flags should go up. The only thing they have proven is the bible when it tells us God created kinds/families to produce after its kinds/families,they have not proven populations can evolve over time into other kinds of life like they teach and their evolution tree of life shows. They are pushing myths as true science.

[Kurieuo]

I think, it is important, and perhaps ACB is purposefully leaving articulating this out so that he can continue saying there is no evidence for evolution. But, when he asks for evidence, I detect that the only evidence that will fly is going back in a time machine, speeding everything up, and seeing one species evolve into the next.

This, might seem unreasonable, but it's just as fair as those who say show me evidence of God. Such, who ask for such, normally are saying tell God to appear before me, then I'll believe. Seeing is believing, and some such. This is called unreasonable burden of proof.

ACB, however, while asking for an unreasonable burden of proof, I feel it does highlight the error both camps often take. Surely, the other evidence that can be presented matters, and yet some just write it all off or won't consider it until they first have the unreasonable provided to them.

[abelcainsbrother]

Sometimes in these threads people respond only to the last post or only a few posts and they lose context of the bigger point being made. Because I have explained in previous posts why normal variation amongst a population cannot be used as evidence for evolution and yet it is. So this is why I say there is no evidence life evolves. I'm not ignoring the massive amounts of evidence behind evolution but no matter how much evidence there is they cannot use normal variation amongst a population for evidence life evolves. I mean if normal variation amongst a population is evolution? Then the whole evolution tree of life must be thrown away.

[abelcainsbrother]

I will explain again why normal variation amongst a population cannot be used as evidence for evolution. It is because it was normal variation that Charles Darwin used to assume it leads to evolution,therefore scientists cannot use for evidence what caused Darwin to assume life evolves and also what he used to sell the idea life evolves.
I mean I have already posted quotes from Darwin proving he used variation to sell the idea life evolves.Based on this fact I can say that there is no evidence life evolves because science is using normal variation amongst a population for evidence life evolves,which means there is no evidence life evolves. If life does evolve? Scientists were supposed to demonstrate that through variation life will evolve eventually to prove Charles Darwin correct,but they are still assuming life evolves just like Charles Darwin did using variation for evidence.

This is why you've often heard critics of evolution pointing out they started out with fruit flies and still had fruit flies when they were done testing. They simply proved and demonstrated normal variation amongst a population and actually believe it evolved. But it's the same thing really with every other kind of life they tested. They are simply documenting normal variation amongst a population believing the life evolved when normal variation happened in its population and because of it,without realizing what they are doing they claim it evolved.

[neo-x]

I will explain again why normal variation amongst a population cannot be used as evidence for evolution. It is because it was normal variation that Charles Darwin used to assume it leads to evolution,therefore scientists cannot use for evidence what caused Darwin to assume life evolves and also what he used to sell the idea life evolves.
I mean I have already posted quotes from Darwin proving he used variation to sell the idea life evolves.Based on this fact I can say that there is no evidence life evolves because science is using normal variation amongst a population for evidence life evolves,which means there is no evidence life evolves. If life does evolve? Scientists were supposed to demonstrate that through variation life will evolve eventually to prove Charles Darwin correct,but they are still assuming life evolves just like Charles Darwin did using variation for evidence.

ToE isn't based on what Darwin said 150 years ago. That's the whole beauty of it. Using science we now know there is evidence for what Darwin claimed. A few things he got wrong but a lot of it was just true. We have evidence to back it up. On which there was no evidence found those ideas were tested and found to be not true.

I am at this point not replying to you because I feel the need to convince you, I am writing this for others to read and see the problem with your views who may not know enough to judge by themselves, which is really a lot of people.

Going back to main point, DNA matters the most because we found it branched out.

This is why you've often heard critics of evolution pointing out they started out with fruit flies and still had fruit flies when they were done testing. They simply proved and demonstrated normal variation amongst a population and actually believe it evolved. But it's the same thing really with every other kind of life they tested. They are simply documenting normal variation amongst a population believing the life evolved when normal variation happened in its population and because of it,without realizing what they are doing they claim it evolved.

I have a question for you, can you tell me what was the aim and expectation of the famous fruitflies experiment?

[abelcainsbrother]

I will explain again why normal variation amongst a population cannot be used as evidence for evolution. It is because it was normal variation that Charles Darwin used to assume it leads to evolution,therefore scientists cannot use for evidence what caused Darwin to assume life evolves and also what he used to sell the idea life evolves.
I mean I have already posted quotes from Darwin proving he used variation to sell the idea life evolves.Based on this fact I can say that there is no evidence life evolves because science is using normal variation amongst a population for evidence life evolves,which means there is no evidence life evolves. If life does evolve? Scientists were supposed to demonstrate that through variation life will evolve eventually to prove Charles Darwin correct,but they are still assuming life evolves just like Charles Darwin did using variation for evidence.

ToE isn't based on what Darwin said 150 years ago. That's the whole beauty of it. Using science we now know there is evidence for what Darwin claimed. A few things he got wrong but a lot of it was just true. We have evidence to back it up. On which there was no evidence found those ideas were tested and found to be not true.

I am at this point not replying to you because I feel the need to convince you, I am writing this for others to read and see the problem with your views who may not know enough to judge by themselves, which is really a lot of people.

Going back to main point, DNA matters the most because we found it branched out.

This is why you've often heard critics of evolution pointing out they started out with fruit flies and still had fruit flies when they were done testing. They simply proved and demonstrated normal variation amongst a population and actually believe it evolved. But it's the same thing really with every other kind of life they tested. They are simply documenting normal variation amongst a population believing the life evolved when normal variation happened in its population and because of it,without realizing what they are doing they claim it evolved.

I have a question for you, can you tell me what was the aim and expectation of the famous fruitflies experiment?

I understand Darwin was wrong on some things and evolution has changed but my point stands still because it was Charles Darwin who made the case for evolution based on normal variation. They still cannot use normal variation for evidence life evolves and you should not expect it to be evidence life evolves,this is common knowledge stuff.

The aim of the fruit fly experiment was to test to see if life evolves but all it proved was variation amongst the population of fruit flies and even after they adapted to a harsh environment also proving and showing Francis Crick was right in his " Central Dogma" of genetics " although genetic information can travel outwards from the DNA in the cell nucleus in order to direct the formation of proteins,information from the body cannot travel back into the nuclei of germ cells and modify the DNA pattern.". The environment cannot effect the DNA of any life and modify it and this is what the fruit fly experiment confirmed. But evolution is believed to be true and so they forged on overlooking what was demonstrated. And not just with fruit flies either. You have normal variation when malaria adapts to be drug resistant and remains malaria.

[hughfarey]

Perhaps this thread should have been called "Serious Problems for Creationism" (or, for the more pedantic, "Spontaneous-Creation-of-Living-Organism-ism"). There appear to be some areas of conflict among those who think different kinds of life were placed independently upon the earth.

The first of these is the problem of when these 'kinds' were created. For the YECs, this is fairly clear - during the six days of creation, as listed in Genesis 1, although, as we have seen, this gets a bit muddled when we get to Genesis 2, as the order of things is clearly reversed. YECs usually wriggle here with a bit of "interpretation", of which, naturally, theirs is correct and everybody else's is wrong.
The OECs, Day-Agers and such simply stretch the six days of creation out over a few billion years, which seems reasonable, although they also have to deal with the problem of the order in which things were created, and the failure of Genesis to mention that before the sixth 'day' and the creation of man, practically everything that had gone before had become extinct. Dinosaurs make much more sense in an evolutionary scenario than as failed ‘kinds’ of spontaneous creations. There is also the problem of species endemic to islands which have only recently emerged from the sea.
Progressive Creationists overcome all these objections well, but as, in detail, there is no scientific difference between progressive creation and evolution, they do not conflict with it. They are distinguished from evolutionists theologically, not scientifically.

However, the problem that has been discussed more on this thread is what exactly was created. Living things "after their kind" is a rather vague generalisation, and most creationists, I think, allow for "normal variation". But this too is extraordinarily difficult for them to define, and they end up twisting themselves into knots. Dogs, cats, salamanders and fruitflies have been mentioned recently, with the understanding that all modern 'dogs', 'cats' etc, are normal variations on the original 'kinds' spontaneously created during the six days. This also neatly allows us to limit the number of animals on the ark to a realistic figure - such as Ark Encounter's estimate of 7000. The trouble with this is that with this constraint, "normal variation" must include speciation, something which is allowed for at AnswersinGenesis. Any list of modern 'variations' of any 'kind' invariably include completely different non-interbreeding groups, which are separate species by any definition of the word. So in spite of any perceived absence of experimental evidence from the last hundred years or so, speciation is specifically allowed for by this interpretation of Genesis. Cheetahs, Leopards and Lynxes, for example, although they are wholly separate in morphology and reproduction, are usually assumed to be "normal variations" of the original "cat" creation.

Although there have been some attempts to list the original created ‘kinds’, they all only deal with vertebrates, a rather small fraction of the variety of life. The reason, I'm afraid, is all too obvious: the genetic diversity of some ‘kinds’ would be so huge as to allow for such extensive "variation" that the terms "variation" and "evolution" would be almost synonymous, and there would be no justification for claiming that the original "kinds" were not related. AnswersinGenesis does have an article attempting to define the mammal 'kinds', but it turns out to be terribly parochial. There are 14 different 'kinds' of Primate (now maybe 300 species), 33 different 'kinds' of Rodent (about 2000 species) and 18 'kinds' of Bat (about 1500 species). That's an average of 21 species of Primate per 'kind', 60 Rodent species per 'kind' and 80 Bat species per kind. In other words, the less like a human, the more likely widely different animals are to be clumped into a single 'kind'. Abelcainsbrother, with his “a bacterium is still a bacterium” classifies an entire living kingdom into a single primordial ‘kind’.

A diagram in AnswersinGenesis gives 239 mammals, 299 birds, 321 reptiles and 70 amphibian 'kinds'. It doesn't enumerate any fish, on the grounds that they could swim in the flood. It also gives an estimate of current species, enabling us to give general proportions of 23 species of mammal, 35 birds, 31 reptiles and 100 amphibians species per 'kind'. It then cheerfully announces that although there are four times as many arthropod species as there are vertebrates, there will be no attempt to classify them, merely the comment "possibly on the ark but not counted". Perhaps they just flew about aimlessly till the flood subsided - tricky for the ones who only fly for a day or so! I dare say they all classify as being “normal variations” of beetles. Other terrestrial animals, such as molluscs and annelids, don’t get a look in. How many ‘kinds’ of snails and worms were created, I wonder?

So, all salamanders are just “normal variations” of God’s primal ‘Salamander’. There are hundreds of extant species, ranging from the 6-foot Chinese salamander which never leaves the water to the 2-inch pigmies which live in the ground in the Eastern US. They are grouped into three distinct sub-orders, which are in turn divided into ten families, all of whom are more reproductively isolated than any two of the big cats (cheetahs excepted) or, indeed, any two of the big primates (humans not excepted). If this is "normal variation" we might wonder how it comes about. It appears to be by genetic variation, mutation, and natural selection - in other words exactly the same processes as evolution.

Quite clearly, there is no creationist definition of "normal variation" which can be qualitatively distinguished from "evolution", but if anyone disagrees, it would be good to know how.

[Audacity]

According to an online article in Nature, "Eight million seven hundred thousand (give or take 1.3 million) is the latest estimated total number of species on Earth," which is a lot more than Noah took on board his boat. And with ". . . a staggering 86% of land species and 91% of marine species remain undiscovered" (same source) there had to be one heck of a lot of speciation going on since his the ark docked some 4,000 years ago. Evolution had to be going full tilt, and then some.

[hughfarey]

According to an online article in Nature, "Eight million seven hundred thousand (give or take 1.3 million) is the latest estimated total number of species on Earth," which is a lot more than Noah took on board his boat. And with ". . . a staggering 86% of land species and 91% of marine species remain undiscovered" (same source) there had to be one heck of a lot of speciation going on since his the ark docked some 4,000 years ago. Evolution had to be going full tilt, and then some.

Evolution... Normal variation... Whatever... It's all the same...

[abelcainsbrother]

My point stands still though that if normal variation amongst a population is evolution? The whole evolution tree is wrong and is not possible. What ya'll are calling speciation is just normal variation amongst a population and you're claiming it evolved when we get normal variation. Just think of all of the different dog breeds but ya'll are claiming speciation when a new kind of dog is produced by the normal variation of reproduction amongst a population and not all dogs can breed but it matters none because you still get dogs with what they can breed with. So it is not important at all like evolutionists claim about not being able to breed. It is a myth made up that a new kind of dog is produced that cannot breed with all other kinds of dogs to claim it has evolved. It does not lead to another kind of life above the species level and its not just because I say it,we have examples that show it doesn't. I'm just using dogs for this example,but it applies to other populations also.

The whole evolution tree of life must be totally redone to show only horizontal variation instead of verticle evolution.Perhaps evolutionary scientists and creationists can come together now and come up with a better tree of life.

[Nicki]

My point stands still though that if normal variation amongst a population is evolution? The whole evolution tree is wrong and is not possible. What ya'll are calling speciation is just normal variation amongst a population and you're claiming it evolved when we get normal variation. Just think of all of the different dog breeds but ya'll are claiming speciation when a new kind of dog is produced by the normal variation of reproduction amongst a population and not all dogs can breed but it matters none because you still get dogs with what they can breed with. So it is not important at all like evolutionists claim about not being able to breed. It is a myth made up that a new kind of dog is produced that cannot breed with all other kinds of dogs to claim it has evolved. It does not lead to another kind of life above the species level and its not just because I say it,we have examples that show it doesn't. I'm just using dogs for this example,but it applies to other populations also.

The whole evolution tree of life must be totally redone to show only horizontal variation instead of verticle evolution.Perhaps evolutionary scientists and creationists can come together now and come up with a better tree of life.

I don't think different dog breeds are different species though. It's possibly true that some dog breeds can't interbreed, but what's the reason for that? It's probably not because their reproductive cells (egg and sperm) won't combine anymore but for a purely practical reason, the dogs being very different sizes.

The idea in evolution (by my understanding) is that different populations of a species become separated (physically or just because of a slight difference) and then gradually become more and more different, as they adapt to their environments, until they're no longer reproductively compatible - from which point they could become more different still and end up as obviously separate species.

[PaulSacramento]

The idea in evolution (by my understanding) is that different populations of a species become separated (physically or just because of a slight difference) and then gradually become more and more different, as they adapt to their environments, until they're no longer reproductively compatible - from which point they could become more different still and end up as obviously separate species.

Yes, this is the best place to start understanding evolution from.