Summations Only

I think you need to read up on your history. Darwin knew exactly how seriously his work would be taken before he published Origin, but if he didn't, he certainly would have been immediately afterwards. He started an eruption in both biology and religion that continues to this day - in a few minority backward-looking religions at least. Science, of course, universally accepted evolution over 100 years ago. Most biologists would be astonished that creationist ignorance is still on display at places like this.What I do think he would be surprised about though is how accurate his ideas turned out to be; particularly with the corroboration provided first by genetics, then by molecular genetics. And, of course, the accumulation of evidence in both the fossil record and our understanding of geology and radio dating.It's an enormous acheivement, but of course if it hadn't been him it would have been someone else. This is something creationist don't register; the ToE is a discovery not an invention. The evidence is there in the world for anyone to find, it doesn't go away just because some prefer a fantasy world.

It doesn't matter what you say to him or how many others explain it, he'll still say it again in a week's time. He won't think about it, he won't consider why you might be right or even wrong - he'll just chant it back out again like an amen in his church; totally brainlessly.

And when was this act of creation?I'm afraid I get very confused about all this because you creationists all believe different things and we never know which version we're arguing against.Are these 'kinds' the same post and pre-Fall? Faith tells us that prior to this fall thing, all animals were vegetarians is that in your book too?Creatures only? No plants, fungii etc?

Well that looks like common descent all the way down to me.....

This is becoming a Monty Python sketch.Species are organisms that don't successfully interbreed. That's been the definition for a few hundred years, it gets a bit fuzzy round the edges sometimes because biology is not mathematics, but it's good enough for us.

Don't. Or can't. Normally both. It doesn't matter, as Darwin - bless him said - 'we know them when we see them.' The vast majority are not contentious - elephants and daphnia are different species.

quote:

---

The species problem is the set of questions that arises when biologists attempt to define what a species is. Such a definition is called a species concept; there are at least 26 recognized species concepts.[1] A species concept that works well for sexually reproducing organisms such as birds is useless for species that reproduce asexually, such as bacteria. The scientific study of the species problem has been called microtaxonomy.[2]

---

Species concept - WikipediaAre you going to fart around attempting to define your way out of every issue you have to confront because of your religious beliefs or are you going to actually deal with real stuff in the real world? Is this obsession with definitions all you've got?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Macroevolution is tied to speciation because macroevolution simply means that evolution has 'created' a new species - as we define them. The fact that you have difficulty understanding that evolution is a continuous, linear event, not the singular one of popping new critters into life isn't science's problem, it's yours.You would look at an African and an Asian elephant and say they're the same kind, science says they're not even the same genus.Elephas maximus (Asian elephants), Loxodonta africana (African savanna elephants) and Loxodonta cyclotis (African Forest Elephant).They're obviously related but now so distantly that they can't interbreed. (Well one cross was successful in that a baby was born in the 1970s in a zoo, but it died quickly.) In the case of the elephant 'you only know it when you see it' when you start measuring things.The ToE predicts that closely related species will appear similar, sometimes so similar that that they can cross with varying success. The point at which we call it a speciation is not something nature concerns itself with, it's only our human need to put things into neat categories that creates the problem of which category to put them in.You will find fuzziness at the edges of most modern species because they're recent speciations - that is how evolution works, all organisms are changing from generation to generation, it's only with massive hindsight that well can say roughly where a split actually happened - and then there can be battles abouts it.Biology is not mathematics. No shit Sherlock - 'you have elsewhere shown' indeed, like no-one had noticed.See above. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

The taxonomy of organisms shows the inter-relationship of species in a logical and highly structured way. All your 'kind' description does is lump species together in an arbitrary way. 'If it's got a trunk' it's an elephant kind.If you creationists got off your knees and did some work on this 'kind' nonsense you'd create taxonomies and cladograms that eventually produce something almost identical to those we have now. The reason is that biological structures, DNA relatedness and behaviours force you to do it - you can't do it any other way.Is a tapir an elephant kind? How would you know? How about an anteater? Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Surely you can tell me whether Tapirs and Anteaters are of the elephant kind and why?

It starts and finishes here:"Because the Bible is the only source for infallible information, studying biblical passages greatly aids the identification and interpretation of baramins"

I'm sure you've been told that this is NOT evolution many times before. To keep repeating an error having been corrected on it is lying. When you do it you expose yourself as both ignorant and dishonest. Yes it does, the sort of voodoo that believes in talking snakes, resurrections, water into wine, demons, cherubim, souls and the everlasting pains of hell.

No biologists calls natural selection evolution. None. Stop lying and try to learn what you're objecting to. Are you drunk?

Well not in a way that people that think the earth is 6,000 years old agree with anyway - how could that possibly happen?And as for 'kinds', you can't even tell me whether Tapirs and Anteaters are of the elephant 'kind' or not and how the decision would be made. Why is that?

Actually it's exactly NOT what evolutionists claim, hyberbolic or otherwise. You will find only creationists talk garbage like elephants evolved from mice and whales from bears. Because, you know, bears and mice are modern animals - as modern as people and nothing has descended from them. It's perfect example of creationist's total ignorance of what they're objecting to. They make utter fools of themselves every time they do it. This is not a trivial point. Exactly. So no mice, no bears and 50 million years ago. It's not just technically incorrect it's also deliberatly dishonest an oft repeated gloat exposing an underlying ignorance. That'll be because it IS evolution. The fact that species change their form to fit their environment - and in the case of finches quickly too - is excellent evidence for evolution in action.Species are not immutable, something your great great grandfather fully believed because he was told this by his priest whilst on his knees before his fiction - if he thought of it at all that is.

That's a cop out. This is a debate site, we don't refer people to other sites to get answers, we explain in our own words what we wish to get across, quoting if necessary and referrencing the place we got the information from forfurther information.I've asked you three times now to show how those three animals fit in with your definition of kinds and you've ignored me, so I can only assume that you can't answer. Biology is able to answer, why can't you?