How do you define the word Evolution?

You can observe observe the fact of gravity, theorize as to the cause of gravity, and accept the quantum theory of gravity. You can observe infections and germs, theorize as to the cause of infections, and accept the germ theory of disease.The entire field of science involves the facts within a field, theories explaining those facts, and a consensus as to what the best theory or theories are. Evolution is no different. Those changes can include the emergence of a new mutation and then its spread through the population in subsequent generations. It can also include a change in the frequency of already existing alleles, such as in the case of the peppered moth or the case of coat color in pocket mice that I have discussed in other threads. An example in humans is the correlation between latitude and alleles linked to skin color. Neutral theory only makes sense when compared to negative and positive selection, so it is a part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution covers all changes in the genetic makeup of populations over time.

Stories in books are just that, stories in books. Also, "created kinds" is a throwaway term because you have no criteria for detecting created kinds.

Those criteria were immediately thrown out when it was said that there could be a lack of interfertility between species within a kind.

For a being who is all knowing, all powerful, and who lives outside of time and space, the most sensible approach is to start from scratch each time. The only reason why reusing systems makes sense is to save time and resources, both of which this supposed designer had an infinite supply of.Also, why limit yourself to a nested hierarchy? If you can make species that are half reptile and half mammal, why not half mammal and half bird, or half ape and half dog? Why is it that the only mixture of characteristics we see are those that evolution would produce, and not the millions of different combinations a designer could make.Human designers aren't limited to a nested hierarchy. Things like cars, buildings, paintings, and pottery don't fall into a nested hierarchy. I am not aware of any single designer who was limited to a nested hierarchy, so why do we see a nested hierarchy if design is true? It makes no sense why we would only see the pattern of shared features that evolution would create if design were true. Airplanes don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Birds do.

If links in that chain go extinct, would it produce cat species that can no longer interbreed with other cat species? I would prefer that you discuss them in your own words. I would be most interested in the genetics of determining "created kinds".Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That leaves evolution as the only explanation for why we see a nested hierarchy.

Observing species evolving now is not direct evidence that species evolved in the past. That should be obvious. What you need is evidence of natural selection that occurred in the past, and that evidence exists in the field of comparative genomics. When you compare genomes between species you can test for the signal of natural selection in their genomes in the form of Ka/Ks ratios, conservation of sequence, and phylogenetic signals. You know, stuff you have admitted you don't understand.

I have stated over and over that a nested hierarchy is evidence of evolution. Perhaps you should read my actual posts.

Since it is macroevolution that is at dispute in most conversations we should not include epigenetics since they produce very limited changes that disappear after a handful of generations. Epigenetics simply can't explain the differences we see between divergent species so it is a non-factor when discussing macroevolution.

In my experience, humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor is usually accepted by most creationists as an example of macroevolution.

A complex and broad theory can not be condensed down into a short definition. If chimps and humans share a common ancestor, and both species evolved from that common ancestor, would you accept that as an example of macroevolution?

When creationists state that macroevolution does not occur, what are they saying does not occur?

Even in purebreds there are new mutations that emerge in every individual in every generation which increases genetic diversity. Is this macroevolution?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

You defined kinds by an exhaustion of genetic diversity. This means a new kind is produced with new genetic diversity, which is exactly what new mutations produce. Evidence, please. Then new mutations produce new alleles that replace those alleles. Keep repeating this process and you have macroevolution. All we need is a single mutation to produce a new kind, according to your definition.

The ToE does recognized that a newly created beneficial allele will replace the less fit allele.It also recognizes that mutations occur in every generation, and that those new mutations increase genetic diversity. You forgot about the addition of new alleles that replaced the old alleles. When you repeat this process over and over you get macroevolution, as I have already shown you in a previous post. Until you show that mutations stop occurring then you must admit that it doesn't stop. Multiple rounds of replacing alleles is exactly what macroevolution is, and it is responsible for the differences seen between the human and chimp genomes.