Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Partial reproductive isolation" is not speciation. Might not even be a subspecies. But it can happen. Now imagine how it would be if every month, a new mammal appears. Yeah, pretty remarkable, right? And yet, no one thought to comment on it.
If brought about by isolation, how would one know? Or, if accompanied by some event that made comunication difficult, it would also not be shared easily. Put those 2 things together, and you have animal dispersion after leaving the ark, and human dispersion and communication difficulties after Babel, followed by attempts to survive by killing off larger, more frightening species, and missing the addition of any new small species, all while moving into new areas, where new species would be commonplace, due to the above, earlier faunal dispersion, so the large bulk of speciation would go unnoticed.
By seeing if the two populations can still interbreed at all.
Like the Koala bears who managed the trip from Asia Minor to Australia. And it seems to me a bit odd to take the "larger, more frightening species" on board the Ark to save them, only to kill them off once the flood ended.
Most big mammals, for example, live where humans exist. So that won't work.
No for the most part I agree that science is about testing ideas and updating them with new evdience. I was mainly talking about the basic assumptions of the science method itself espeically when it comes to disciplines like archeology, geology and evolution. Assumptions like Materialism, Reductionism and Uniformatarianism.
Uniformitarianism is merely the assumption that the rules by which the universe works have been the same since the beginning. So far, that's always turned out to be the case. Since evolution is directly observed to happen constantly, no such assumptions are necessary.
No such assumption is part of geology. Sedimentation has observably different rates. And that's been known since Lyell.
The scablands were caused by massive flooding when an ice dam broke and released the waters of a huge lake. That's why they look so much different than geologic features caused by gradual erosion.
Again, it comes down to evidence. In S. America, for example, we find that such areas are uplifted, and still rising. So it makes sense. In Pakistan, we find such fossils in sediments show millions of years of gradual deposition of marine organisms, the result of India moving north into Asia.
The issue is not who believes God's word, but whether or not you believe certain people who interpret His word.
Then lions and tigers are the same species?
Men do things from desperation sometimes.
Now they do. Did they always? No, in either your view or mine. So it still works.
The question is to what degree is the Bible (the library of mostly Jewish literature) God's word. In other words, how we see inspiration.
Your example still isn't even remotely fast enough. The ark encounters space and rapid speciation idea really would require new species and even new genus, not in 13 generations, but in 1. Imagine a paleomastodon, giving birth to a whooly mammoth, giving birth to an African elephant. This is more of the speed that would be necessary.
Nearly so. Humans can put them in circumstances under which they can interbreed. Otherwise impossible. This is one of the major unsolvable problems for creationism. If God created each species separately, then there would be precise boundaries. But there aren't. Some creationists have tried to solve this (and the Ark problem) but supposing a limited, but amazingly rapid amount of evolution before modern times, when God somehow pulled the switch and went back to "no evolution."
Yep.
Why 1?
Why do you think this is impossible, at least to a degree? And how do you know wooly mammoths and african elephants aren't of the same species, like Clydesdales and Shetlands, or Pygmies and Dinkas?
Why? If humans are just giving them the right romantic touches--soft lighting, classy jazz music, and a gourmet meal--what's to keep that from happening in the wild?
Or something higher than species, something we have a hard time distinguishing without a lot of observation in the wild. The bible calls it "kinds".
No, that was the point of my previous post. It still happens, but requires some isolation and ecological forcing, perhaps, that isn't normal today. Though I wouldn't call it evolution, since it was likely designed into the creatures from the beginning.
1 because of the sheer number of species in the world.
We're going to ignore aquatic and arthropodic species, or bacteria, etc. since those probably weren't brought by twos to Noah. How many are left?
Which we'll continue to ignore as irrelevant.
Well obviously just because we continue to discover new species, doesnt mean that new species form every generation. Barbarians number also doesn't appear to include fossil species. But regardless, the sheer number of species would require birth of new species every generation due to how ma h there are.
Nope, but discovering them now tells us we don't know when they formed. If it was a long time ago, it tells us our accounting system is inaccurate. If it was fairly recent, it tells us that speciation is rapid.
Most fossil species that are no longer extant were killed off durIng the flood or shortly thereafter, so Barb's number may be a point of agreement.
Can you give us the calculations for that?
It's not relevant because neither Barb nor I are advocates of it. If you want to explain why it's relevant, have at it. Imo, since you are agreeing with Barb on the timeframe, to introduce another way to argue for the timeframe that negates biblical revelation as useful is superfluous and counterproductive.
If we don't know when their speciation occurred, then we simply don't know. It sounds like you're trying to argue that speciation could occur after single generations on the bases that the timing of speciation is unknown for some.
It sounded like you're challenging the understood reality that speciation events take many generations. That's just how I perceived your comments. Its fine if that's not what you meant to do.
