Lion of God said:
That speciation happens is dependent on how it is defined. Evolutionists tend to use a very broad definition of the term to validate that it happens, however the truth is that the type of speciation they require has never been proven or observed.
See this page
Especially when the mode of reproduction is asexual. The BSC only applies to sexual reproduction. Still it is the most used definition, and I see no reason for non-scientists to challenge it. When scientists come up with a better definition, it will replace the BSC. It is a complex matter.
If I were a creationist, I would be very hesitant about using the absolute criterion of being physiologically incapable of interbreeding. By this criterion it might be necessary to classify humans and chimpanzees as the same species. As far as I know, no one has made the attempt to prove that hybridization of these two populations is physiologically impossible. Of course, any such experiment would be unethical.
I don't know what you mean by "the type of speciation they require." Could you elaborate?
What makes it even more questionable is that there are a number of different definitions of what constitutes a different species and varies on which taxonomist is doing the classifying.
In closely related species there is often a question of whether the populations one is studying are varieties, sub-species or species. The same fuzziness occurs when one is deciding whether two species should be placed in the same genus, in the same genus but different sub-genera or in different genera.
This debate is more a matter of taxonomy than of evolution. When most biologists assumed fixity of species and used Linnean taxonomy, there were just as many disputes of this nature as there are today.
However, the theory of evolution explains why such fuzziness exists when classifying closely-related species. It is difficult, on the assumption of fixity of species or even special creation of kinds, to explain why divisions between species are so difficult to draw. Why are the species not clearly separated one from another? But on the assumption of evolution, lack of clarity on this is to be expected. Since, in most cases, speciation is a gradual process, we expect to find a gradation of different degrees of separation.
Speciation is only the variation in the bottom of the ladder.
In the first place, evolution is not ladder-like. In the second place, speciation is the final event in the evolutionary process. Most evolution occurs within the species. It is within the species that mutation occurs and spreads. It is within the species that gene flow and genetic drift and sexual and natural selection occur. It is only when populations of the same species are isolated from one another in some way (geographical, behavioral, assortative mating, etc.) that these within-species mechanisms can lead to different outcomes which may lead to speciation.
Once speciation does occur, the only event of equivalent magnitude that can occur afterwards is another speciation.
If it can't be reliably proven that it occurs, how much more so when we start looking at the variations between Genus's, Family's, Order's, Classes, Phylum's and Kingdom.
The higher taxa are simply classifications of species. Nothing more major than speciation is needed to generate them. The process of evolution per se does not create a new family except by creating new species from the common ancestor of the family. Same for other taxa.
I commend you on your Faith. You must have an awful lot of it to believe in Evolution.
I don't need faith to accept evolution: only sense and reason. If you wish to commend me on my faith, look instead to my belief in God, in Christ, in Salvation and the Kingdom to Come. No observation, no deduction could lead to believing these things. But by the grace of God I have faith and hope in their truth.