The Methods of Historical Science to demystify the process for the public:

Let me pop in here candle2 and say a few wordsFirst off, welcome to the fray Science is based on what we see, what the evidence is, what it shows, and then develops theory to explain the evidence, then it tests the theory to see if it makes valid predictions -- and that last part is what gives it the strength and authority to rule out false concepts.MicroevolutionWhen it comes to evolution, there are some basics that are known: This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation: Like walking on first one foot and then the next.The processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses. We see it every generation in every species. I'm sure your grandson recognizes that offspring are not clones of the parents but have visible differences. What is not so easy to see for him, but you should recognize it, is that the environment is also changing, and this alters the balance of opportunity and challenges for each species -- "fitness" is a moving target.If we look at the continued effects of these evolutionary processes over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from any in the ancestral parent population. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the sub-populations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations. If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.CladesAn additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants. With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" (as defined by science, not creationists) are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations). Nor does the scientific explanation of microevolution (change within species) and macroevolution (accumulated change over many generations, clade formation and extension) suggest that such silly creationist straw-man misrepresentations of evolution would occur.Kinds And what we see with scientific observations is that clades produce offspring that are the extensions of the parent clade population. Thus dogs give rise to dogs, with many varieties known and new ones developing. This is the closest fit I have seen to science and the creationist loose definition of "kind" -- The "A" clade could also be called the "A" kind, where all reproduction happens within living breeding populations according to the clade/kind genetics via microevolution.... so the issue for creationists is not what happens downstream by microevolution ... but what happened in the past.The problem for creationists is how far upstream (into the past) can you go. Creationism predicts a massive bottleneck of all species at one specific time (the purported flood) AND a common specific time when the whole process began (creation). Evolution predicts no such coordination of species and timing.The first issue the creationists run into is time and how it is measured. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. The scientific evidence rules out a young earth as a valid concept (ie - it is falsified).The second issue the creationists run into is that there is always another common ancestor deeper in the past joining related clades together into a larger more extensive clade ... until you get back to the first known evidence of life, a simple single cell organism population, rather than lions and tigers and bears. This rules out a common "day of creation" as well as a world wide flood.The theory of evolution explains this evidence, creationism doesn't. Enjoy

Most of my response to this post can be found in Message 24, where your misconceptions of evolution are discussed in detail, with pictures. Accordingly: As noted in Message 24, once you understand the evolutionary view, all breeding populations produce offspring that are members of their species, that are members of the clades, and "only a total idiot would suggest otherwise." Wrong. You really should learn what actual evolutionary biologists say. Again, I refer you to Message 24. Curiously, the processes of evolution have all been observed, documented in hundreds of scientific papers in peer reviewed scientific journals, and are considered factual evidence that evolution occurs every day. Actually, as noted in Message 24, Evolutionists define microevolution as:

quote:

---

When it comes to evolution, there are some basics that are known:

​

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

​

This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.

---

Curiously, it can't be a "misnomer" if they are the people who originally define the term: science defines the terms of the science, and people using the terms in debates should use them properly, according to the science definitions. Observable science clearly proves that members of a species produce more members of that species, and that they are also members of the parent species clade/s.Again, as I said in Message 24,

quote:

---

Kinds

​

Kind produce kind is easy to understand.

​

And what we see with scientific observations is that clades produce offspring that are the extensions of the parent clade population. Thus dogs give rise to dogs, with many varieties known and new ones developing. This is the closest fit I have seen to science and the creationist loose definition of "kind" -- The "A" clade could also be called the "A" kind, where all reproduction happens within living breeding populations according to the clade/kind genetics via microevolution.

​

... so the issue for creationists is not what happens downstream by microevolution ... but what happened in the past.

​

The problem for creationists is how far upstream (into the past) can you go. Creationism predicts a massive bottleneck of all species at one specific time (the purported flood) AND a common specific time when the whole process began (creation). Evolution predicts no such coordination of species and timing.

​

The first issue the creationists run into is time and how it is measured. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. The scientific evidence rules out a young earth as a valid concept (ie - it is falsified).

​

The second issue the creationists run into is that there is always another common ancestor deeper in the past joining related clades together into a larger more extensive clade ... until you get back to the first known evidence of life, a simple single cell organism population, rather than lions and tigers and bears. This rules out a common "day of creation" as well as a world wide flood.

​

The theory of evolution explains this evidence, creationism doesn't.

---

As I said at the beginning, Message 24 already covered most of my response. Perhaps you should read it.Enjoy