The "unified" theory of evolution

[AV1611VET]

It's directly observed to happen.

No it is not.

To use academia's logic, where does red become orange in this picture?

No point in denial.

Denied.

The only escape for YECs is to redefine the term to mean "evolution so extreme that no one person could ever observe it."

Then tell me at what point red becomes orange, or orange becomes yellow, or etc.

Academia likes to point out that evolution is so slow, it can't be observed.

Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa.

Only on paper.

I've been told that names are given, then changed -- frequently.

If you disagree, what was Hesperopithecus haroldcookii changed to, five years later?

It was changed to Pecari tajacu, wasn't it?

This stuff is only done on paper.

And hominins produced different chimps and humans but they are still hominins.

Let's discuss genera, not families.

In fact, there is greater genetic diversity between elephants than between humans and chimps.

Neat.

They're still elephants.

Some even admit the macroevolution of new genera or even families.

Ya ... I just noticed the Asian and African elephants have two different names for their genera:

African elephant = Loxodonta africana

Asian elephant = Elephas maximus

This kind of bologna only fools those who subscribe to it.

You've admitted as much yourself. Elephants are a family, with a number of genera.

You keep wanting to take it up a notch.

Are you tired of trying to defend my KIND = GENUS argument?

But given the scientific definition, they might as well argue that bats are birds.

Let's be frank here, the Bible does not call a bat a "bird."

It calls it a "fowl."

Academia teaches, however, that all fowl are birds.

Thus Bible haters claim that Leviticus is in error.

But here's what the Bible REALLY SAYS ...

Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Notice the first three examples in that passage?

Does academia recognize the eagle as a fowl?

No.

Does academia recognize the ossifrage as a fowl?

No.

Does academia recognize the ospray as a fowl?

No.

Does academia recognize the bat as a fowl?

No.

BUT

Does God recognize them as fowls?

Yes.

Thus it should be painfully obvious that academia needs to change its definition of fowl -- isn't it?

 

[The Barbarian]

It's directly observed to happen.

No it is not.

Sorry, you're mistaken:

Macroevolution comprises the evolutionary processes and patterns which occur at and above the species level.[1][2][3] In contrast, microevolution is evolution occurring within the population(s) of a single species. In other words, microevolution is the scale of evolution that is limited to intraspecific (within-species) variation, while macroevolution extends to interspecific (between-species) variation.[4] The evolution of new species (speciation) is an example of macroevolution.
Macroevolution - Wikipedia

Only on paper.

Nope. Observed directly.

There is greater genetic diversity between elephants than between humans and chimps.

Neat.

They're still elephants.

And humans and other apes are still hominins. The difference is, elephants are more distantly related to each other than hominins like humans and chimps are.

You've admitted as much yourself. Elephants are a family, with a number of genera.

You keep wanting to take it up a notch.

Are you tired of trying to defend my KIND = GENUS argument?

Then it was probably a bad idea for you to include elephants in one kind. This is why creationists get in trouble; they can't be consistent in their stories.

Let's be frank here, the Bible does not call a bat a "bird."

It calls it a "fowl."

NIV
Leviticus 11:13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture

Most versions use "bird:

Leviticus 11:13 - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

The dictionary says fowl is "a bird of any kind."

Definition of FOWL

a bird of any kind; a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or hen of the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus); especially : an adult hen; any of several domesticated or wild gallinaceous birds… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Again, if you have to redefine common words to save your argument, that's a pretty good clue that the argument is faulty.

Does academia recognize the eagle as a fowl?

Yes, it's a bird. All fowl are birds. Meets the common definition. Bats are not fowl, since they aren't birds. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me.

Thus it should be painfully obvious that academia needs to change its definition of fowl -- isn't it?

Well, "fowl" is a common usage word like "ape." Taxonomy uses specific terms for these taxa, but every scientist would know that "fowl" means "bird" and "ape" means "hominoid."

You're confused because the Bible classifies animals by function, and today we classify them by characteristics.

​

 

[AV1611VET]

Does academia recognize the eagle as a fowl?

Yes,

No.

From AI Overview:

An eagle is not considered a fowl in the traditional sense. While eagles are birds, they are wild birds of prey and not typically domesticated or raised for meat or eggs like poultry (e.g., chickens, ducks, turkeys).

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Observed directly.

From AI Overview:

While macroevolution, the large-scale evolutionary changes like the evolution of new species or higher taxa, is supported by a vast body of scientific evidence, direct observation of it is often difficult due to its timescale. Macroevolutionary changes can be inferred from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and other lines of evidence, but direct experimental observation of macroevolutionary processes is challenging within a human lifespan.

Who observed it directly?

(Please answer this.)

 

[AV1611VET]

There is greater genetic diversity between elephants than between humans and chimps.

According to Darwin, does that make us a "favoured race"?

 

[The Barbarian]

Does academia recognize the eagle as a fowl?

Yes.
"a bird of any kind"
Definition of FOWL "Fowl" is not a technical term, but a common term.

fowl(n.)
Old English fugel "bird, feathered vertebrate," from Proto-Germanic *fuglaz, the general Germanic word for "bird" (source also of Old Saxon fugal, Old Frisian fugel, Old Norse fugl, Middle Dutch voghel, Dutch vogel, German vogel, Gothic fugls "a fowl, a bird"), perhaps a dissimilation of a word meaning literally "flyer," from PIE *pleuk-, from root *pleu- "to flow."

Besides, as you just learned, almost all Bibles use "bird" not fowl.

And I'm not sure why you think equating bats with chickens and turkeys is more reasonable than equating them with birds generally.

While macroevolution, the large-scale evolutionary changes like the evolution of new species or higher taxa, is supported by a vast body of scientific evidence, direct observation of it is often difficult due to its timescale.

Often, but not always. Which is why many YECs admit the fact, while avoiding the word itself:
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

They retreated from their earlier stand because they had to; macroevolution is a documented phenomenon.

Who observed it directly?

Ernst Mayr

http://www.drosophila.jp/jdd/class/070101/07010155.pdf

Hugo de Vries

Hugo de Vries

Hugo de Vries, a Dutch botanist and geneticist, was born Feb. 16, 1848. De Vries was interested in botany from his earliest days, and he studied the

www.lindahall.org

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thus it should be painfully obvious that academia needs to change its definition of fowl -- isn't it?

Not at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not at all.

Need to keep us in a state of confusion, don't they?

 

[The Barbarian]

There is greater genetic diversity between elephants than between humans and chimps.

According to Darwin, does that make us a "favoured race"?

All existing species are "favored races" (biologists at the time, used that term for species). In biology, survival is favor.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Need to keep us in a state of confusion, don't they?

No-one else does it, you do it to yourself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is greater genetic diversity between elephants than between humans and chimps.


All existing species are "favored races" (biologists at the time, used that term for species). In biology, survival is favor.

He's like a dog with a bone on that term, and not in a good way.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Fowl", like "ape" and "lizard" are common terms, not part of "academia." We use more precise terms in the sciences because common terms are not precise.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Fowl", like "ape" and "lizard" are common terms, not part of "academia."

Unless, of course, the Bible mentions bats as fowls.

Then it's a different story, isn't it?

 

[The Barbarian]

"Fowl", like "ape" and "lizard" are common terms, not part of "academia."

Unless, of course, the Bible mentions bats as fowls.

You think the Bible is "part of academia"?

Then it's a different story, isn't it?

The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Trying to shoehorn it into whatever you think "academia" is, that's a mistake.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Fowl", like "ape" and "lizard" are common terms, not part of "academia."

From AI Overview:

While ornithology covers all birds, including fowls, there's also a related field: Poultry Science, which focuses more specifically on the domestic and agricultural aspects of poultry, including their meat and egg production, nutrition, processing, and related health and safety concerns.

You think the Bible is "part of academia"?

Here's what I think:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

The Bible is about God and man and our relationship.

Amen to that!

So why does It mention bats in the context of fowl?

Was that a mistake?

Or is the mistake on academia's end?

 

[dlamberth]

So why does It mention bats in the context of fowl?

You like to use AI, so I thought I'd do the same:

Why Bats Are Called "Fowl" in the Bible:​

1. Ancient Hebrew Classification:
   • The Hebrew word used is "עוף" (oph), which broadly means a creature that flies.
   • It doesn’t strictly mean "bird" as we define it in modern biological taxonomy (i.e., feathered, warm-blooded, egg-laying animals in class Aves).
   • In the biblical context, any flying creature—including bats, which are mammals—could fall under this category.
2. Pre-scientific Understanding:
   • The Bible was written in a time before modern biological sciences and taxonomy (e.g., Linnaean classification in the 18th century).
   • Animals were grouped based on observable traits—such as flying, swimming, or walking on land—rather than genetics or evolutionary relationships.
3. Function Over Form:
   • The ancient world categorized animals largely by their function or environment (e.g., "things that fly" vs. "things that creep on the ground"), not by internal anatomy or reproduction.
   • So, anything with wings that could fly was often lumped together.

Summary:​

Bats are called "fowl" in the Bible not because the authors misunderstood their nature, but because the ancient Hebrew word for flying creatures grouped all winged animals together. This reflects an observational, not scientific, classification.

 

[AV1611VET]

Summary:
Bats are called "fowl" in the Bible not because the authors misunderstood their nature, but because the ancient Hebrew word for flying creatures grouped all winged animals together. This reflects an observational, not scientific, classification.

Thank you, dlamberth, for that post.

So, in essence, applying scientific binominal nomenclature to Leviticus 11:19 can lead to error, can it not?

 

[The Barbarian]

"Fowl", like "ape" and "lizard" are common terms, not part of "academia."

(AI endorsement)

Well, that's convincing...

Why Bats Are Called "Fowl" in the Bible:​

1. Ancient Hebrew Classification:
   • The Hebrew word used is "עוף" (oph), which broadly means a creature that flies.
   • It doesn’t strictly mean "bird" as we define it in modern biological taxonomy (i.e., feathered, warm-blooded, egg-laying animals in class Aves).
   • In the biblical context, any flying creature—including bats, which are mammals—could fall under this category.
2. Pre-scientific Understanding:
   • The Bible was written in a time before modern biological sciences and taxonomy (e.g., Linnaean classification in the 18th century).
   • Animals were grouped based on observable traits—such as flying, swimming, or walking on land—rather than genetics or evolutionary relationships.
3. Function Over Form:
   • The ancient world categorized animals largely by their function or environment (e.g., "things that fly" vs. "things that creep on the ground"), not by internal anatomy or reproduction.
   • So, anything with wings that could fly was often lumped together.

Summary:​

Bats are called "fowl" in the Bible not because the authors misunderstood their nature, but because the ancient Hebrew word for flying creatures grouped all winged animals together. This reflects an observational, not scientific, classification.

Right. As I pointed out, words like "bird" or "days" in ancient Hebrew were not the same as we think of them today. "Bird" was a functional term for "animal that flies." "Day" had many other meanngs than 24-hour day. The error is in humans trying to fit those terms into modern expectations.

God isn't wrong; Biblical literalists are wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

Bats are called "fowl" in the Bible not because the authors misunderstood their nature, but because the ancient Hebrew word for flying creatures grouped all winged animals together. This reflects an observational, not scientific, classification.

Exactly.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's what I think:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

It's important to know the difference between what the Bible says, and what we interpret it to say. Forget this, and you end up in all sorts of difficulties.