Macroevolution:

[Obliquinaut]

Yep, and every time I looked they were still flies. I could not even find where one of them evolved into a chicken.

And again, you are OK with things changing at the species level and you don't consider that to be evolution but it has to happen at a much higher level cladistically speaking?

So, if I might, why put in the arbitrary cut-off?

It's like seeing Michaelangelo's David and saying "Meh, I don't believe humans can carve GIANT statues, just very large statues."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, and every time I looked they were still flies. I could not even find where one of them evolved into a chicken.

Yep, that's right. Flies can't evolve into chickens. They split off a long time ago and evolution is a one way street. But you still are an ape, you still are a mammal, you still are a vertebrate, and you still are a eucaryote. Each group larger than the other. The last one makes you and a banana the same "kind".

 

[AV1611VET]

Your claim, your responsibility.

No, it's not my claim.

My claim is that "kind" means "genus," and I'm sticking to it.

You don't agree with that, so go find someone else's if you're hurting so badly to have one.

 

[Speedwell]

Great, from one chicken to two, I am finally beginning to understand this evolution thing.

Right. Now you've got two different species of chicken, they've got new names and "chicken" has become a genus. And they split some more and pretty soon some of the lines are becoming rather less chicken-like, and after more splitting, some of them don't look much like chickens at all, and now the biologists are thinking about splitting the chickens into two genera and "chicken" has become a "family," and so on...

So what do you think distinguishes "adaptation" from "evolution?"

 

[tevans9129]

You do realize that, according to evolution, your avatar is a "terrible lizard," do you not?

And evolutionists say terrible lizards and man have never coexisted?

No wonder they're confused.

Yeah, but according to SW I am of the same so no better than the "terrible lizard".

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you know the purpose of taxonomy?

To assign artificial names to animals?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I ask this question.

"If I wanted to ask a “biology scientist” if these two images were of the same “kind”, biology wise, what would be the proper language for doing that?"

And that is your response...I thought someone wrote that you had a Ph.D, am I mistaken?

Correct, I have a PhD in geology and spent most of my career in R&D chemistry.

My point is an continues to be that to accept evolution at a more discrete level of cladistics (species level) but not at higher levels beggars the imagination.

It is no less amazing that a bacteria can create adapt to poisons that would KILL previous generations and allow them to survive just a few generations later as it is to see that given BILLIONS of YEARS of change we end up with horses and chickens.

 

[Speedwell]

To assign artificial names to animals?

You're right. But as a creationist you will have to explain why the artificial names we give animals, the artificial categories we classify them into, constitute a barrier to evolution.

 

[tevans9129]

By golly it seems to me that someone has been blowing smoke. A chicken and a horse are not the same species, they are different.

[Defining a species

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator.]

Defining a species

Has anyone ever seen a horse breed with a chicken?

 

[tevans9129]

Correct, I have a PhD in geology and spent most of my career in R&D chemistry.

My point is an continues to be that to accept evolution at a more discrete level of cladistics (species level) but not at higher levels beggars the imagination.

It is no less amazing that a bacteria can create adapt to poisons that would KILL previous generations and allow them to survive just a few generations later as it is to see that given BILLIONS of YEARS of change we end up with horses and chickens.

And my point is that you never answered the question that I asked and that answer was what I was interested it.

 

[tevans9129]

And again, you are OK with things changing at the species level and you don't consider that to be evolution but it has to happen at a much higher level cladistically speaking?

Put any name you wish to apply to it. If you call a fruit fly that adapts to a different environment but is still a fly as being evolution, then by all means go for it. I call it adaptation and have no problem whatsoever with it as it is still of the same "kind" in my language. Now if that fly "evolved" into a bovine, I would call that a miracle, some may label it as evolution, how would you label it?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're right. But as a creationist you will have to explain why the artificial names we give animals, the artificial categories we classify them into, constitute a barrier to evolution.

I already have: 9

 

[Obliquinaut]

Put any name you wish to apply to it. If you call a fruit fly that adapts to a different environment but is still a fly as being evolution, then by all means go for it. I call it adaptation and have no problem whatsoever with it as it is still of the same "kind" in my language. Now if that fly "evolved" into a bovine, I would call that a miracle, some may label it as evolution, how would you label it?

This is kind of interesting. If my kids were to be born UNABLE TO BE KILLED BY GUNSHOTS TO THE HEAD you would find that simply to be an "adaptation" and not really all that impressive.

Which is kind of what bacteria do. They develop the ability (through the wonders of biochemistry) to ADAPT and NOT BE KILLED BY ANTIBIOTICS that could kill most of them just two generations earlier.

And that isn't impressive enough? That isn't miraculous enough?

Wow. You are a tough room.

 

[Speedwell]

By golly it seems to me that someone has been blowing smoke. A chicken and a horse are not the same species, they are different.

Nobody here thinks that a horse is the same species as a chicken. Nobody here made that claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that isn't impressive enough?

It better be a LOT MORE impressive than that, if I'm expected to change my beliefs over it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do realize that, according to evolution, your avatar is a "terrible lizard," do you not?

And evolutionists say terrible lizards and man have never coexisted?

No wonder they're confused.

Poor AV, I see that you still get confused by semantics.

The non-avian dinosaurs all went extinct long before man came along.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's not my claim.

My claim is that "kind" means "genus," and I'm sticking to it.

You don't agree with that, so go find someone else's if you're hurting so badly to have one.

What happens if after reconsideration gorillas and chimps are put in the same genus as man? The main reason that they weren't in the past may have been mere prejudice. Since you get hung up on words so often will you accept common descent then?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030521092615.htm

 

[Subduction Zone]

Put any name you wish to apply to it. If you call a fruit fly that adapts to a different environment but is still a fly as being evolution, then by all means go for it. I call it adaptation and have no problem whatsoever with it as it is still of the same "kind" in my language. Now if that fly "evolved" into a bovine, I would call that a miracle, some may label it as evolution, how would you label it?

So would I since that would actually violate the theory of evolution.

If all that you can beat is a strawman you should not be surprised when you constantly lose.

 

[Obliquinaut]

It better be a LOT MORE impressive than that, if I'm expected to change my beliefs over it.

Don't change your beliefs. Just pointing out the scientific data. I'm always more impressed by things in nature than many YEC and creationist types.

 

[pitabread]

I already have: 9

And that explains absolutely nothing.