Most creation scientists believe in micro evolution, also called adaptation or speciation. I used to believe this too, but as a result of my research for my book Mysteries of History Revealed with observations of fossils I discovered, I have been convinced that the idea of adaptation or micro evolution has no more evidence for it than macro Darwinian evolution. And in fact is part of Darwinian evolution. There are no common ancestors for any two kinds of Finch, Iguana, or any other organism. You imply that both the marine iguana and the terrestrial iguana came from a common ancestor. Where is the proof for this?
Marine iguanas are medium-sized lizards and are unique as they are marine reptiles due to their foraging on inter- and subtidal algae only. These iguanas forage exclusively in the cold sea, which leads them to behavioral adaptations for thermoregulation.
Land iguanas are primarily herbivorous; however, some individuals have shown that they are opportunistic carnivores supplementing their diet with insects, centipedes and carrion. Because fresh water is scarce on the islands it inhabits, the Galapagos land iguana obtains the majority of its moisture from the prickly-pear cactus that makes up 80% of its diet: fruit, flowers, pads, and even spines. During the rainy season it will drink from available standing pools of water and feast on yellow flowers of the genus Portulaca.
Creation scientists and evolutionists agree that these two kinds of iguanas came from a common ancestor.
Did they, where did this idea come from? Secular researchers theorize that land iguanas and marine iguanas evolved from a common ancestor since arriving on the islands from South America, presumably by rafting. The marine iguana diverged from the land iguana some (evolution age) 8 million years ago, which is older than any of the extant Galapagos islands.
This all comes from naturalistic speculation.
Creationists claim that there is no way for one kind to evolve into another going through stages where it could not survive. How could a dinosaur turn into a bird while it flopped around with useless arms gradually growing useless feathers as its arms moved to the back of its body for millions of years? Irreducible complexity proves this is false. Changing into something else would leave it vulnerable to natural selection, it would not survive half way.
How could some terrestrial iguanas decide to become marine iguanas and others didn't. Why didn't they become marine while floating from one island to another?
How could they suddenly be able to eat other foods and have the ability to deal with the salt before it killed them?
This idea is a remnant of materialistic thinking. There is no evidence anything speciated. Darwin was WRONG. The only speciation we see are domestic organisms produced by man in breeding producing different varieties of dogs, cats, horse, corn, etc. All domestic hybrids which never could happen under natural circumstances.
Adaptation? There is no evidence for this. All the Finch varieties are the same species. Creationists tend to be lumpers, evolutionists tend to be splitters. The more fake species names supports evolution. Yes there are cyclic changes to the size of the beaks, and coloring like among different individuals of the same family. Some survive better than others during changes in weather. But no new species.
If iguanas are produced by speciation, then how about all the other kinds of lizards? Did they all come from a common ancestor? The fossil record does not support this, there are many fossil lizard kinds. Look at birds, and ants, etc. Each kind stays with its own kind. Fire ants do not mate with small black ants. The black ants attack and kill the red ants. Each kind of bird, ant, etc. eats different food, builds different nests, makes different calls and songs.
Now you say but what about adaptation where one kind survives better in a certain kind of environment?
This was produced by design. A dog that has a thick coat and is predominately white would survive better in the arctic and the others would become extinct. But the darken colored dog with thin fur would survive in more warmer temperatures. This is not adaptation, this is design showing God created great variety so everything would survive in their environment. Even similar but different organisms. Take the mammals and marsupials. They are almost identical, but they are very different from each other. Certain verities of particular organisms have characteristics to survive the others go elsewhere or die.
And now you say how can you claim different kinds can poroduce offspring in domestic breeding if they arn't the same kind? different kinds like mating a donkey with a horse produce a mule. But the mule cannot have offspring because they are similar but not the same kind. I have come to realize that they were created seperately but with similar genes making mating possible but not natural. It never happens in nature.
Creationists should wake up and analyze the facts. That makes us as bad as the evolutionists we are criticizing. Don't accept something just because everyone thinks it is a fact!