When discussing evolution with a creationist, one particular roadblock keeps cropping up. Namely, the distinction between "micro"-evolution and "macro"-evolution. Typically the discussion will go something like this:
Evolutionist*: Evolution is a fact. It can be observed in the natural world.
Creationist: Ah! But that's microevolution. Species can only evolve within "kinds"
Evolutionist: There you go again! What the *bleep* is a kind?
Creationist: A group of species that are related through evolutionary relationships.
Evolutionist: ...
This is an old argument that I'm sure most of us have seen many times. But I have never come across a creationist definition of a "kind" (except for the circular argument in my above example).
So as I was reading through the forum I started thinking of a way to define "kind" in taxonomic terms, and all of a sudden it hit me. Kinds are clades!
Here's my understanding of what creationists believe: After the Great Flood, Noah released one species of each "kind" from his ark. These kinds then "microevolved" (nevermind the unfeasability of this) into all the diverse species we have today. In other words, any group of species that can trace their common heritage back to one of the noachian species is a kind.
And then I realized something. This is exactly how taxonomists define clades. And by definition, no species that is part of a clade can ever give rise to a species outside of that clade.
So here are my assumptions (and I'd like any creationists to dispute them if I'm wrong)
1. A "kind" is any group of species that can trace a common descent back to one species from Noah's Ark.
2. A "kind" is therefore a clade.
3. Micro-evolution is an observed fact that occurs within "kinds", or clades.
Conclusion: Since evolutionists and creationists agree that species can only evolve within "kinds" (clades) we can now drop the ridiculous distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Creationists were right, it's all micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is a fairy tale.
So, hypothetically, if the descendants of cattle should one day grow wings, large brains with telepathic abilities, and develop a spacefaring culture that ruled the galaxy, despite looking completely different, they would be of the same "kind" and will have gained their amazing adaptations entirely through microevolution.
Now, would anyone like to tell me why I'm wrong? Or perhaps someone would like to propose an alternative definition of "kind"?
™ Version 4.2