Start with what? Study biology? You would be most welcome to do so.Where would you like me to start?
We also have the evidence of the extant species and the patterns of genetic similarity between them.
Geographic and environmental isolation is required for speciation to occur. I don't think it;s controversial to propose this happening.
You are misunderstanding my point.
The variation between those two breeds would make interbreeding unlikely, and lacking more median dogs would survive with different strategies and different pressures.
I'm not proposing that these breeds are primed to survive abruptly being in the wild, merely to use them as an example of two extremely closely related populations that could be labelled as a macroevolutionary change.
Dogs are effectively a ring species by body plan.
That's just an example of a large stable population of canids being, more or less a sub species of wolves reacquiring the niche left by wolves and coyotes.
Using any understanding of genetics the Ark narrative is completely impossible without significant intervention of vast amounts of extra plants, animals, genetic diversity, sedimentary structures and fossils by miracle.
Genetic similarity makes if more likely that they had a common ancestor, but it isn't proof of that, and the closer the similarity, the more likely for it to still be considered reproducing after it's kind as per Genesis.
No it is not. The question is whether what we call a different species is actually considered a different species that cannot reintegrate if the geographic and environmental isolation is removed.
I understood your point. I am saying that that particular situation cannot occur in nature, but only exists because humans created two animal types that look like different species even though they are both dogs. Force-mating a cow and a buffalo can produce an offspring, but it is usually sterile. If you force bred a dog and a wolf, would you get a viable offspring that could continue to reproduce? If you can, then I would surmise that they are not different species and no macro-evolution has occurred. Or in a religious sense it would mean the animals still reproduced according to their kind. A wolf would then be just another breed of dogs. (Or dogs are another breed of wolves. Take your pick.)
Not familiar with that particular term, and the wikipedia explanation was more confusing than my limited interest in biology was willing to figure out.
And probably at some time possibly reintegrating with the wild populations.
Or an interpretation of the flood story that is not all-encompassing in nature.
Just on a side note, science doesn't "prove." The most you can expect from science is the best explanation of a phenomenon currently available based on the evidence at hand. But while scientific theories are provisional and never "proven" they can be disproven, or falsified, at any time by new evidence. When they are falsified they must be modified or abandoned. So it is with evolution. You could, in principle, falsify the theory of evolution (though it is pretty sound, as theories go) but all you would have is a falsified theory, not a default to a previously falsified theory or even to an account for which there is no scientific evidence whatever, like the Genesis accounts.Genetic similarity makes if more likely that they had a common ancestor, but it isn't proof of that,
Creatures always reproduce after their "kind" whether there is just one "kind" (the common ancestor of evolution) or many (the independently created "kinds" imagined by the Genesis account.) Here is a question for you: my great great grandfather was born in Switzerland. He was Swiss. The question is, how many generations of my descendants will have to be born and pass away before my great great grandfather stops being Swiss?and the closer the similarity, the more likely for it to still be considered reproducing after it's kind as per Genesis.
Just on a side note, science doesn't "prove." The most you can expect from science is the best explanation of a phenomenon currently available based on the evidence at hand. But while scientific theories are provisional and never "proven" they can be disproven, or falsified, at any time by new evidence. When they are falsified they must be modified or abandoned. So it is with evolution. You could, in principle, falsify the theory of evolution (though it is pretty sound, as theories go) but all you would have is a falsified theory, not a default to a previously falsified theory or even to an account for which there is no scientific evidence whatever, like the Genesis accounts.
Creatures always reproduce after their "kind" whether there is just one "kind" (the common ancestor of evolution) or many (the independently created "kinds" imagined by the Genesis account.) Here is a question for you: my great great grandfather was born in Switzerland. He was Swiss. The question is, how many generations of my descendants will have to be born and pass away before my great great grandfather stops being Swiss?
Swiss is an arbitrary geographical boundary. It says nothing about your great great grandfather except where he lived for a portion or all of his life. The question should be, how many generations of descendants will have to be born, before his descendants stop being human?
Never happen. They will forever be humans, primates, mammals, vertebrates and members of the animal kingdom. Even if they evolved to putting down roots and living off chlorophyll they could never belong to the plant kingdom, they would just be plant-like animals. The same with other creatures, whales, for example: Science tells us that they used to have legs and walk around on land. They are still clearly mammals and no amount of evolution could ever turn them into fishes--just like all my descendants will be offspring of a man from Switzerland, forever.Genesis doesn't try to be a scientific document. It's a story to explain the origin of earth in a very simplistic way, so it can be told to people regardless of their experience level. Much is omitted from the details. God left it to people who might later want to learn more on their own to determine the fine details of life.
Swiss is an arbitrary geographical boundary. It says nothing about your great great grandfather except where he lived for a portion or all of his life. The question should be, how many generations of descendants will have to be born, before his descendants stop being human?
Never happen. They will forever be humans, primates, mammals, vertebrates and members of the animal kingdom. Even if they evolved to putting down roots and living off chlorophyll they could never belong to the plant kingdom, they would just be plant-like animals. The same with other creatures, whales, for example: Science tells us that they used to have legs and walk around on land. They are still clearly mammals and no amount of evolution could ever turn them into fishes--just like all my descendants will be offspring of a man from Switzerland, forever.
It's a weak analogy, I'll admit. I was merely trying to comment on the common creationists' expectation that evolution requires evolving creatures to "jump" from one line of evolutionary descent to another--to breed not according to "kind," Or, at least to make sure that was not SuperCow's expectation.Place of geographical birth is not really analogous with evolutionary descent.