Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

quote:

---

But a dog is a dog and not a kangaroo or halfway there.
The changes in dogs is minor or micro as it does not change its name as you admit.

---

So let me get this straight. Because we use the same name that makes them a kind? Good, then crocodiles and chimps are in the same kind because we call them "vertebrates". Insects and humans are in the same kind because we call them "animals".If that goes too far, then I can claim the same for you as well. We call certain dogs "dalmations" and others "St. Bernards" therefore they are different kinds.

quote:

---

Your defining things out of meaning.
I mean the word dog is the word the world uses for a kind of creature and otherwise I don't understand your point.
Rob

---

The world also uses the word "vertebrate" for a group of creatures as well. The world uses "animal" for a group of organisms as well. The world uses "dalmation" and "st. bernards" for a group of animals as well. At what level (ie "dalmation", "dog", "vertebrate", "animal") should we stop at when deciding what the created kinds are, and why?

quote:

---

Creationists don't know what the original kind is. Only that it can't be too off the mark of the present kinds. The need of kind to be similiar and time problems.

---

So what are the present kinds? Do you mean "species" or "families" of organisms? If they can't be too far off then we shouldn't find fossils that are intermediate between the two, correct? If those sort of changes can happen in a short amount of time, what stops these small changes from accumulating over time until the groups are completely different? Doesn't your argument of no macro through micro rest on a young earth?

quote:

---

Also this DNA thing is not proof of origin or connection only that like form will have like DNA. One blueprint.

---

This is false. The tasmanian wolf and the north american wolf look very similar yet their DNA is quite different. I could dig up some other examples if you like.

quote:

---

The mechanism perhaps was a kind of natural selection however I think the mechanism for speciation has not yet been found and demonstrated although some speciation takes place under stress.

---

The mechanisms put forth by ToE have been observed. Has your mechanism ever been observed?

quote:

---

No there is no hint of human/ape ancestry. Just interpretations of scraps of bone.

---

No, there is no hint of created kinds. Just interpretations of scraps of bone and flesh.

quote:

---

Creation is a sef evident thing. We exist and so does the natural world. Its Toe that says this evidence is wrong.

---

Evolution is self evident. We exist and so do the natural laws of which evolution is part of. It is creationists who say that there are other laws and they have yet to demonstrate them.

quote:

---

Yes hoever all that is talked about in Toe is interpretation of bones and flesh. Surely our observation of the world now trumps interpretations of scanty data that changes with every new graduation class in small circles.

---

Yes, however, all that is talked about in creationism is that the bible has to be correct. Surely our observations of the world now trump a book written 2500 years ago by scientifically illiterate goat herders that has spawned thousands of different interpretations, such as catholicism, gnosticism, and protestantism.

quote:

---

Perhaps WE are off thread here however the Bible has proved wrong in nothing. Indeed if it was by herders it would be a laughing stock to claim truth. Yet rather it is held to be true by a good portion of the most intelligent and successful people in history. Americans (and some Canadians). If the best people hold something to be true , especially the Puritan Protestant wing, this is a great prompt to its accuracy. If backward countries like Mexico or Bulgaria or Bangladesh or Israel instead held the Bible as true and We didn't then you might have a case.

---

Those intelligent and successful people hold the Bible to be THEOLOGICALLY true, not scientifically true. Most christians do not take Gensis literally, but do think it is true.