Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[Job 33:6]

Correct. The final bird is an individual, not a species. A species is a group. Individuals have mothers. Groups include mothers.

Sure

This is the part that you are not able to comprehend. Mothers of individuals are themselves individuals and they belong to the same group of individuals as their children. Groups are not individuals, groups are not born, groups don't have mothers.

Let's backup again. If mothers were always the same species as their children, then when would new species ever arise? Logically, never.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let's backup again. If mothers were always the same species as their children, then when would new species ever arise? Logically, never.

Or, I'll rephrase for clarity,

A species as a population consists of individuals, and without those individuals, a species as a population wouldn't exist.

So, with that said,

If mothers were always the same species as their children, when would members of any new species arise?

 

[olgamc]

Or, I'll rephrase for clarity,

A species as a population consists of individuals, and without those individuals, a species as a population wouldn't exist.

So, with that said,

If mothers were always the same species as their children, when would members of any new species arise?

Gradually over time. Watch the movie. Read what I wrote about red tailed birds. If you don't understand gradual change, there is nothing I can do.

 

[Job 33:6]

Gradually over time. Watch the movie.

Members of a species cannot arise gradually over time, because they are individuals.

Would you like to try again?

 

[Job 33:6]

Or, I'll rephrase for clarity,

A species as a population consists of individuals, and without those individuals, a species as a population wouldn't exist.

So, with that said,

If mothers were always the same species as their children, when would members of any new species arise?

I'll change the word "members" to "individuals" to help.

A species as a population consists of individuals, and without those individuals, a species as a population wouldn't exist.

So with that said,

If mothers were always the same species as their children, when would individuals of any new species arise?

And you can't say gradually over time, because individuals don't exist gradually over time, they exist in a moment of time. Birds only live maybe 5 to 10 years. And an individual doesn't change midway through its life from one species to another.

 

[olgamc]

Members of a species cannot arise gradually over time, because they are individuals.

Would you like to try again?

A group can arise gradually over time. And yes, individuals can be re-grouped. Individuals exist physically. A group exists in the scientist's mind. A group is only a group because the individuals in the group share some common traits. What traits? It's up to the scientist to decide.

 

[Job 33:6]

A group can arise gradually over time. And yes, individuals can be re-grouped. Individuals exist physically. A group exists in the scientist's mind. A group is only a group because the individuals in the group share some common traits. What traits? It's up to the scientist to decide.

Individuals do not arise gradually over time. Did you, as a human being, arise gradually over time? Born as a different species and then when you got older you became a new species? No. You're an individual. You are an individual of a single species.

I'll change the word "members" to "individuals" to help.

A species as a population consists of individuals, and without those individuals, a species as a population wouldn't exist.

So with that said,

If mothers were always the same species as their children, when would individuals of any new species arise?

And you can't say gradually over time, because individuals don't exist gradually over time, they exist in a moment of time. Birds only live maybe 5 to 10 years. And an individual doesn't change midway through its life from one species to another.

 

[olgamc]

Individuals do not arise gradually over time.

Right

I'll change the word "members" to "individuals" to help.

A species as a population consists of individuals, and without those individuals, a species as a population wouldn't exist.

Right

So with that said,

If mothers were always the same species as their children, when would individuals of any new species arise?

Children always belong in the same group as their mother. A group of birds will gradually over time develop characteristics that are different from the original mothers. If you want to be particular, we can say that the new species arose at the point in time when the accumulated changes in the entire group of individuals have become reproductively incompatible with the original group of mothers.

And you can't say gradually over time, because individuals don't exist gradually over time, they exist in a moment of time. Birds only live maybe 5 to 10 years. And an individual doesn't change midway through its life from one species to another.

Individuals do not arise gradually. Groups do.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right

Right

Children always belong in the same group as their mother. A group of birds will gradually over time develop characteristics that are different from the original mothers. If you want to be particular, we can say that the new species arose at the point in time when the accumulated changes in the entire group of individuals have become reproductively incompatible with the original group of mothers.

Individuals do not arise gradually. Groups do.

Accumulated changes are still things that originate in individuals.

And you're using this "group" word now, rather than calling them species or populations.

But the logic still remains. If children are always of the same group as their mothers, then new groups would never form. Because all individuals would be indefinitely confined to the same group.

So I would simply ask the same question with a different word, if children are always of the same group as their parent, then when would individuals of a new group ever arise?

 

[olgamc]

Accumulated changes are still things that originate in individuals.

A small change originates in an individual. Accumulated change happens over time over many small changes from one individual to another. Gradually.

And you're using this "group" word now, rather than calling them species or populations.

But the logic still remains. If children are always of the same group as their mothers, then new groups would never form. Because all individuals would be indefinitely confined to the same group.

Wrong. There are changes over 1 generation, but they are minute, so children can reproduce with members of a previous generation. You need many generations to accumulate enough change, so that members of the new population can no longer interbreed with members of the original population.

So I would simply ask the same question with a different word, if children are always of the same group as their parent, then when would individuals of a new group ever arise?

You'll just keep asking the same question, and I'll keep giving you the same answer. The answer is in the video. When all children are different enough from the original birds that they cannot reproduce.

 

[Diamond72]

Did God create humans physically or did He not?

The natural laws create humans. We are told that God creates those laws. They seem to be a part of the fabric of the universe because we can only observe the effect and try to determine the cause from that. The universe started out as helium, hydrogen & lithium. Everything evolved from that. Mostly elements are made in stars. Every element is a different color so we can use a spectrograph to see what elements are being produced in a star.

 

[Diamond72]

If children are always of the same group as their mothers, then new groups would never form.

There is a book called the seven daughters of Eve. Although there is now considered to be 19. For example every major population center in China is said to be descended from a different "Eve". So the women in Bejing are different from the women in Hong Kong or some other major population area. Eve in the Garden of Eden is one of those 19 Eves. When we get to Heaven we will meet our matriarch there and see how big our family really is. People like Genghis Khan is said to have 16 million descendants. My son is 1/3 northern Chinese.

 

[Job 33:6]

A small change originates in an individual. Accumulated change happens over time over many small changes from one individual to another. Gradually.

Yes, but new species are not assigned in a gradual fashion at all.

We don't say, this animals is 20% species A. And 80% species B. Either they're one species or another.

Wrong. There are changes over 1 generation, but they are minute, so children can reproduce with members of a previous generation. You need many generations to accumulate enough change, so that members of the new population can no longer interbreed with members of the original population.

Ive already corrected you here. Lions and tigers can interbreed, as can grizzley and polar bears. So this isn't a litmus test for new species.

But even if it were, at some point in time, you would still have an individual that couldn't interbreed with the original population. And that individual has a mother.

You'll just keep asking the same question, and I'll keep giving you the same answer. The answer is in the video. When all children are different enough from the original birds that they cannot reproduce.

Sure, and I'll remind you again that of all those children, they all have mothers. And they were all born of mothers.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure, and I'll remind you again that of all those children, they all have mothers. And they were all born of mothers.

And this is the key here

So I would simply ask the same question with a different word, if children are always of the same group as their parent, then when would individuals of a new group ever arise?

Your answer:
When all children are different enough from the original birds that they cannot reproduce.

So, when does that happen? The answer: individuals are different enough, when they are born. At the moment of birth.

Individuals aren't born, and then retroactively reviewed and then turn into individuals of a new species half way through their life.

The traits that separate them and result in a lack of interbreeding, are traits that they acquire at birth.

 

[Job 33:6]

And this is the key here

So I would simply ask the same question with a different word, if children are always of the same group as their parent, then when would individuals of a new group ever arise?

Your answer:
When all children are different enough from the original birds that they cannot reproduce.

So, when does that happen? The answer: individuals are different enough, when they are born. At the moment of birth.

Individuals aren't born, and then retroactively reviewed and then turn into individuals of a new species half way through their life.

The traits that separate them and result in a lack of interbreeding, are traits that they acquire at birth.

Also, let's say we have a population, they aren't able to interbreed with their original population, so we designate them as a new species.

Here's the reality of the situation, they all were still born of mothers. Just like in the video, if we rewind one generation and they are interbreeding, then that's the generation between old species and new.

There's really no way out of it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, let's say we have a population, they aren't able to interbreed with their original population, so we designate them as a new species.

Here's the reality of the situation, they all were still born of mothers. Just like in the video, if we rewind one generation and they are interbreeding, then that's the generation between old species and new.

There's really no way out of it.

The problem with your argument is that there is no category of a group that exists between two species. If species be evolves from species A, there is no in between. There is a definite point in time in which group B exists where it previously had not.

And in the video they skip generations, they jump from 200 to 1200 etc

But if we were to watch those birds, every single generation. The line between the old species and the new, it would occur at an instant in time. There's no such thing as an animal that is not one species or another and is somehow in between being either or. All animals, all individuals, are designated as one species or another.

So given that change in an instant of time, however you draw that line and whatever individuals are inside of the group or outside, regardless of when it happens, you will be left with a situation where the parents are of a different species than children.

Just like if I go to the store and I have a group of shades of black and dark gray, and I have a group of shades of white and light gray, if I have to separate white from black, I have to draw the line somewhere. And it doesn't matter who's on one side or the other or what color or what shade is on one side or the other.

At some point in time, you will have to definitively say, this is not black, this is white. In one generation, you will have to make that judgment. No matter how you want to classify species.

So even if we took your answer, and you said when all the children can no longer interbreed, that's the moment the individuals are designated as a new species, okay even if we took that, those individuals still had mothers that existed in a time before then. And so their mothers would not be part of the new species. Because there would still be interbreeding going on.

No matter how you shake it, you have to draw a line in a point of time. And that point of time is not something gradual, it's a moment. Even if the overall process is gradual, the line is still at a moment in time.

 

[Job 33:6]

The problem with your argument is that there is no category of a group that exists between two species. If species be evolves from species A, there is no in between. There is a definite point in time in which group B exists where it previously had not.

And in the video they skip generations, they jump from 200 to 1200 etc

But if we were to watch those birds, every single generation. The line between the old species and the new, it would occur at an instant in time. There's no such thing as an animal that is not one species or another and is somehow in between being either or. All animals, all individuals, are designated as one species or another.

So given that change in an instant of time, however you draw that line and whatever individuals are inside of the group or outside, regardless of when it happens, you will be left with a situation where the parents are of a different species than children.

Just like if I go to the store and I have a group of shades of black and dark gray, and I have a group of shades of white and light gray, if I have to separate white from black, I have to draw the line somewhere. And it doesn't matter who's on one side or the other or what color or what shade is on one side or the other.

At some point in time, you will have to definitively say, this is not black, this is white. In one generation, you will have to make that judgment. No matter how you want to classify species.

So even if we took your answer, and you said when all the children can no longer interbreed, that's the moment the individuals are designated as a new species, okay even if we took that, those individuals still had mothers that existed in a time before then. And so their mothers would not be part of the new species. Because there would still be interbreeding going on.

No matter how you shake it, you have to draw a line in a point of time. And that point of time is not something gradual, it's a moment. Even if the overall process is gradual, the line is still at a moment in time.

And you can't turn and say that the mother would be part of the same species or a member of the same species, because by that logic it would be turtles all the way down and you would never have speciation.

 

[olgamc]

Also, let's say we have a population, they aren't able to interbreed with their original population, so we designate them as a new species.

Right. We designate them. So these individuals are now a different species compared to the original population. But if we compare them to their own mothers, we designate them as the same species as their mother. Because, if our definition of species is a group of individuals that can interbreed, then they are a different species from the original and the same species as their mothers.

And granted, sometimes the scientists don't follow their own definitions. Which is confusing to me. Lions and tigers are different species because their offspring is not viable, so they are not able to successfully interbreed. So that's fine. But humans and neanderthal are considered a different species, though they could interbreed. Go figure.

Here's the reality of the situation, they all were still born of mothers. Just like in the video, if we rewind one generation and they are interbreeding, then that's the generation between old species and new.

There's really no way out of it.

Well, that means you are defining species differently than how the term is commonly defined. Which is fine, like I said, but you are not believing the same theory of evolution as everyone else - you are believing your own theory.

 

[Job 33:6]

And you can't turn and say that the mother would be part of the same species or a member of the same species, because by that logic it would be turtles all the way down and you would never have speciation.

To summarize, the same basic logic remains.

If individuals of new species are always the same as their parents, then individuals of new species could never arrise.

If various shades of dark gray transitioning to light gray were always designated as black, then there could never be any white. No matter how far in the transition from black to white you went. You could never call something white, if you always designated the shade as black.

And you could never call a new species, a new species, if it were always designated as the species of its parent.

If you said that the parent is always the same species as it's child, then logically you would never have the ability to distinguish one species from another. Because if you sat and watched every single generation, and you kept calling every single child of the same name as its parent, you would never have a new name.

And that's what your video doesn't really get into because it's just a simple 5 minute YouTube video. The video skips from generation 200 to generation 1200. And then it says oh, well that's easy, 1000 generations later it's a different species.

Well yeah that's true, but if we watched every single generation, at some point in time we would have to draw that line. And that's the generation where the parent is of a different species than its child.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right. We designate them. So these individuals are now a different species compared to the original population. But if we compare them to their own mothers, we designate them as the same species as their mother.

Only if we are not watching every single generation. Your videos skips a thousand generations and more.

If I went to the paint store and I had black colors on my left and white colors on my right, it would be easy to skip over a thousand colors and say, oh yeah that's white and that's black. It would be really easy to separate them if I skipped over colors.

But if you watch every single color transition in the middle, at some point in time, you would be forced to start calling something white or to start calling something black. If you went through every single color, you would have no choice but to change. And that change in your mind, that change in your professional designation, it would occur at a single moment in time.

If I handed you a piece of paper and I said that you needed to assign every single shade to either white or black, there would be a moment in time where you would change your answer.

You would have no choice.

And so it is with animals, you would have no choice but to change your mind.

And it doesn't matter to me when you change your mind, whenever you do, that's the moment where we can say that the parent is not the same as the child.

But this would require you to look at every single generation.