Okay. This is a chicken forum and not the best place to have this kind of discussion. I did not intend to start this discussion here. I posted a funny video and you did not get the joke. I was simply explaining the joke to you. You obviously did not find the joke funny and disagree with the premise. That’s okay, I don’t think David Letterman is funny either, but a lot of people do.
For the sake of trying to express the difference between what you are trying to prove and what most of the people on this thread are saying, I will attempt to, in the most balanced form, explain this to you.
The problem lies, not in what the video is about or what you are saying. It lies in the definition of the word “Evolution”. There are six different meanings to the word. The reason most people get in arguments over this subject is that they have not defined which meaning of the word they are talking about. For instance, all of the statements you have made and the examples you have offered are all about Microevolution (or micro adaptation). Microevolution is minor changes within a kind of animal. I don’t think there is a single person on this forum that has any argument with the concept of micro adaptations occurring within a kind of animal. We are all chicken breeders for crying out loud. It is through the process of micro adaptation that we improve our birds to show quality. So in this regard, you are getting all excited trying to convince people of a concept that everybody is already in agreement with. You are essentially preaching to the choir.
The problem with your line of reasoning is that are trying you defend Darwin’s theory of evolution which is about “Macroevolution”, not “Microevolution”. Macroevolution is the process by which one kind of animal turns into another kind of animal; a starfish turning into a monkey, for instance. Now, Darwin did try to use microevolution via undirected natural selection as a vehicle to explain his theory of macroevolution, but microevolution via undirected natural selection is an inadequate vehicle to explain macroevolution, because microevolution via undirected natural selection is a lossy process. What this means is that, microevolution via undirected natural selection, results in to reduction of genetic information, not the acquisition of new genetic information; the latter of which would be necessary for the macroevolution to occur.
Since this is a chicken forum, let us use chickens to understand this question. I like chickens for this, because we have a good understanding of where chickens came from and can observe them over a long period of time. We all know and agree that all the types (or breeds) of chickens in the world today came from the Jungle Fowl that was domesticated from the wild around four thousand years ago. Fortunately for us, there are still Jungle Fowl living in the wilds from which they originally came today and so we can see what the birds looked like that were the ancestors to all modern chickens. To say that there are some radical differences between the Jungle Fowl and some of the chicken breeds today is an understatement. But regardless of the difference in the color, size and shape, there is one common thread that connects them all, they are all still chickens.
The Scientific Process is about what can be observed and tested. What we can observe about chickens after over four thousand years of intensive breeding to produce different qualities is that, a chicken will become a chicken, will become a chicken, will become a chicken. Not once in the four thousand history of chicken breeding, after countless millions of attempts, has a chicken ever become anything but a chicken. In fact, in spite of the wide array of colors and sizes, they have never even changed into a different type of avian. They were ground dwelling avians four thousand years ago and they are still ground dwelling avians today.
Now here comes the interesting part. If you could capture true pure Jungle Fowl from the wild today and subject them to another four thousand years of targeted breeding, you could potentially reproduce most if not all of the chicken breeds we have today. But you could never take a breed like the Silver Sebright and get a pure Jungle Fowl (from just them) no matter how long you bred them. The reason for this is what I said before, “microevolution is a lossy process”. Basically, a true pure Jungle Fowl would have all of the genetic building blocks already in it to produce all the breeds we have today, but as a result of target breeding, we have reduced the genetic information of the breeds today so that they do not have the genetic building blocks to go back to what they once were. And some of your breeds, like the Silver Sebright, have so little genetic variables that they probably could not change that much at all anymore.
What this shows us is that an animals ability to adapt to it’s environment is conditional on the genetic qualities that are already present in the animal, not the new genetic qualities it will develop. Darwin’s theory of macroevolution is dependent on an animal developing new genetic information to adapt to a new and changing environment and the evidence for this is not observable or testable in nature, and therefore, Darwins theory, does not follow the Scientific Process.
Take for example the rare breeds of chickens in Australia. The government of Australia has not allowed the importation of new chickens for over 60 years and as a result the rare breeds of chickens in Australia are in danger as a result of genetic deficiencies that have resulted in the degradation and reduction of their genetic code and variables due to inbreeding. You can read about this here: http://www.worldpoultry.net/Breeder...nbreeding-within-rare-breed-poultry-1235703W/
What this clearly shows us is that animals cannot spontaneously produce genetic code within themselves to deal with environmental conditions. It shows that the genetic code must come from an outside source, as we can observe with the rare breeds of chickens in Australia and the Australian breeders efforts to import new breeds to fix the genetic problems with their rare breeds.
In summery. It is clear from what we can observe and test (Scientific Process) overtime in chickens, that while a certain kind of animal can undergo micro changes within it’s kind, it cannot make a macro jump to a different kind of animal. We can also see that the ability of an animal to undergo micro adaptation to it’s environment is completely dependent on the genetic variable already present in the animal. Furthermore, we can also see through observation and testing that an animal cannot spontaneously produce new genetic information within itself and that the only way for it to acquire new genetic information is to outcross itself with another animal of the same kind.
It is amazing what you can learn by just observing the history of chickens.
To everyone, this is my last post about this. I felt that if I could make it about chickens it would be okay to go ahead and write it. I hope you enjoyed it. If not, that's okay too. We are all free to believe what we want to believe as long as we respect each other.
Here is my favorite. 
DE should run the fireants off
although I have noticed after the chickens got through scratching up the ants while eating the grits that the ants seemed to disappear. Guess they didn't like their spot being disturbed 
