You'll never get a usable answer from creationists. The closest I've seen someone come here is Peg with her "if it can breed it's the same kind" which of course runs into numerous problems, not in the least with ring species.
Anyway, good luck with your quest, my prediction is there will be no answer forthcoming.
I recall an article I read regarding phasmatodea. Scientists did directly observe a "kind" becoming a new "kind" - the new "kind" from the "old kind" could not breed with each other.
Interesting. Keep in mind though that there are some species of stick insects that reproduce by parthenogenesis, so "breeding" is not something they do anyway.
Wouldn't that be a good way to counter-argue a person like Peg (despite the fact that she will not acknowledge anything that contradicts what she says) or is it not a proper argument because of the way they "breed"?
These stick insects do "breed normally" with one another. Some do it by parthenogenesis, but not all.
So in this case, yes, this would be a case of one kind diverging into two different kinds (when taking Peg's definition), don't hold your hopes up for any acknowledgement on the creationists part though.
Ok, so this one doesn't qualify. Better start searching again Hotjer.
Bluejay writes:
*The link still makes a smiley when I write it (even when I cut-n-paste from Modulous's edits in "peek mode"), and I can't figure out how to fix that, so you'll have to go back to Message 10 to get the link.
You could try the "disable smilies" tickbox under the reply box. I'm guessing that should work.
To me nested hierarchy implies imperfect inheritance or incomplete duplication. But how is it to be distinguished from a deity poofing a series of creatures into existence based upon what they say is common design or modular design or whatever else they say it is.
My problem is that I do not see the difference between poofology which produces incomplete duplication, or ToE which does it equally indistinguishably.
The discovery institute evidently did a good job of expressing that "god did it" because I can't find the seems anywhere. Occam's razor is to me the only way I've been able to discern.
Essentially their argument is common design implies common designer, which is itself an explanation for nested hierarchy. There must be a foolproof rebuttal.
I don't know about foolproof, but I always liked this video by CDK007:
Long ago I enterd the EO-forums "And God Created Darwin". I was looking for answers like this. I tried almost everything to get an answer, but no. I'm not sure if Huntard is a prophet, but many things he said were right.
Thank you, Carel. I remember you from there. Welcome to EvC!
This place is a bit different then the EO-forums. Most importantly, it's moderated a lot better then the EO-forums. Which is one of the reasons I left there.
Now I want to debate the 6000 jear old earth. That's even more difficult, because creationists know that with that timescale they throw almost every science through the drain.