What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then they're different kinds. Did you notice the bible says every winged fowl, and not all winged fowl, after his kind as though they were being separated.

Every and all are synonyms. They mean the same thing.

 

[inquiring mind]

Every and all are synonyms. They mean the same thing.

Does it say every winged fowl 'and mammal'?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Does it say every winged fowl 'and mammal'?

Nope, no translation that I've seen does (some of the newer ones might but they really get bland after a while). They always refer to anything that flies as 'flying fowl' or 'fowl of the air'.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You speak of kind, but ask a scientific question. Science makes its own
quandaries, it needs to answer them. Animals of the same kind can breed, its really not that complicated.

It may not seem that complicated, but how can you apply the 'kinds' concept to ring species, where species A can breed with species B, species B can breed with species C, species C can breed with species D, but species D can't breed with species A?

By the definition you give A and B are the same kind, B and C are the same kind, and C and D are the same kind, i.e. they're all the same kind - but at the same time, A and D are not the same kind...

Your definition appears to be either wrong or incomplete in real-world situations.

 

[inquiring mind]

Nope, no translation that I've seen does (some of the newer ones might but they really get bland after a while). They always refer to anything that flies as 'flying fowl' or 'fowl of the air'.

So, if a bat is a mammal, its not included when the bible states winged fowl... right?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, if a bat is a mammal, its not included when the bible states winged fowl... right?

Except that, according to the Bible, it is because the Bibles doesn't make the distinction between bats and birds.

 

[inquiring mind]

It may not seem that complicated, but how can you apply the 'kinds' concept to ring species, where species A can breed with species B, species B can breed with species C, species C can breed with species D, but species D can't breed with species A?

By the definition you give A and B are the same kind, B and C are the same kind, and C and D are the same kind, i.e. they're all the same kind - but at the same time, A and D are not the same kind...

Your definition appears to be either wrong or incomplete in real-world situations.

Maybe science will later determine that A & D are not really the same kind.

 

[inquiring mind]

Except that, according to the Bible, it is because the Bibles doesn't make the distinction between bats and birds.

The bible says winged fowl; you tried to include the bat.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The bible says winged fowl; you tried to include the bat.

Leviticus 11:13-19:
13“And these you shall detest among the birds;a they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle,b the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 14the kite, the falcon of any kind, 15every raven of any kind, 16the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, 17the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, 18the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, 19the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.

Deuteronomy 14:11-18:
11 You may eat any clean bird. 12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,14 any kind of raven, 15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, 18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

See what the bat is included with? Birds, aka fowl.


So to use the Biblical Kind is worthless for science since it's such a catch all term.

 

[inquiring mind]

Except that, according to the Bible, it is because the Bibles doesn't make the distinction between bats and birds.

Yes, it does. The bible says every living creature that moves according to its kind. Maybe He didn't want to take up a lot of space naming them all individually.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, it does. The bible says every living creature that moves according to its kind. Maybe He didn't want to take up a lot of space naming them all individually.

Now that is a cop out answer if ever I've heard one. The Bible doesn't make the distinction between bats and birds, and your over reliance on Kinds does not create a barrier between microevolution and macroevolution.

 

[inquiring mind]

Leviticus 11:13-19:
13“And these you shall detest among the birds;a they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle,b the bearded vulture, the black vulture, 14the kite, the falcon of any kind, 15every raven of any kind, 16the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, 17the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, 18the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, 19the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.

Deuteronomy 14:11-18:
11 You may eat any clean bird. 12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,14 any kind of raven, 15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, 18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

See what the bat is included with? Birds, aka fowl.


So to use the Biblical Kind is worthless for science since it's such a catch all term.

Birds and fowls aren't the same thing according to science.

 

[Bradskii]

A tree climbing fish, sounds like a fish man...

Sounds like something in transition between a water based creature and a land based one. What do you think?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Birds and fowls aren't the same thing according to science.

VERY GOOD! That is true.
But the Bible does not make the attempt to make the distinction between the two, instead lumping them together into a single group, a single Kind as it were. Hence why Kind is useless to biological science.

 

[Bradskii]

To a point...

So you keep saying. This is the whole point that you are making. That evolution somehow stops. It gets 'to a point' and then...all changes stop?

You are making what I might call an empty claim. You are stating it baldly without any evidence whatsoever. Some creationists maintain that evolution doesn't happen. But you have specifically agreed that microevolution happens. Now I don't care what prefix you put in front of evolution to indicate it's only small changes. Nobody denies that the changes are small. You need to explain what prevents microevolution from happening.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe science will later determine that A & D are not really the same kind.

Science won't determine that, kind is not a scientific term. I'm asking how your definition of 'kind' works with ring species.

 

[inquiring mind]

So you keep saying. This is the whole point that you are making. That evolution somehow stops. It gets 'to a point' and then...all changes stop?

You are making what I might call an empty claim. You are stating it baldly without any evidence whatsoever. Some creationists maintain that evolution doesn't happen. But you have specifically agreed that microevolution happens. Now I don't care what prefix you put in front of evolution to indicate it's only small changes. Nobody denies that the changes are small. You need to explain what prevents microevolution from happening.

I've never said changes, variations, stops ( i don't think). They just don't have the magnitude of change TOE suggests, in my opinion.

 

[inquiring mind]

Science won't determine that, kind is not a scientific term. I'm asking how your definition of 'kind' works with ring species.

You already answered it. If they can't breed they're either hybrid, which still makes them the same kind as their parents, or they are a different kind.

 

[Bradskii]

You already answered it. If they can't breed they're either hybrid, which still makes them the same kind as their parents, or they are a different kind.

So hang on, you accept that gradual changes could result in a different 'kind' that cannot interbreed with the original? Colour me confused.