What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[Gregory Thompson]

It can breathe in water. It can breathe on land. It can swim underwater. It can walk on land (it climbs trees for heaven's sake...). I can't see that anyone could possibly argue that it's not a combination of a creature that lives in water and one that lives on land. It does both!

QED.

Then it is what it is, can it speak also?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

I haven't answered it, I'm asking you.

I can understand you may be reluctant to accept that the definition of 'kind' you posted leads to contradictions when applied to the real world, but it does.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Quite, it implies either two creatures of the same 'kind' that can't interbreed, contradicting the definition of kind, or two creatures that both are and are not members of the same kind, which is a logical contradiction.

 

[eleos1954]

It is a recurring thing that I see often in threads on this forum when evolution is brought up and someone invariably from the Creationist side tries to go "Well, that's microevolution, no macroevolution?"

But I've never seen anyone make an attempt to actually explain what the barrier is that stops microevolution becoming macroevolution.

So, can anyone from Creationist side of the debate answer the question: what is the barrier between micro and macroevolution?

after their kind (micro-evolution) capable of reproducing off spring (biblically correct)

God made the barrier.

 

[Bradskii]

Then it is what it is, can it speak also?

That you are ignoring the evidence and asking nonsensical questions is noted.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

after their kind (micro-evolution) capable of reproducing off spring (biblically correct)

God made the barrier.

As I've said: Kind is a useless term because it's such a catch-all term. I've even given two examples of it including bats with birds and all non-whales together in the same groups of Kind.

 

[eleos1954]

As I've said: Kind is a useless term because it's such a catch-all term. I've even given two examples of it including bats with birds and all non-whales together in the same groups of Kind.

able to reproduce - defines kind --- if the two can not produce off spring then they aren't the same kind.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

able to reproduce - defines kind --- if the two can not produce off spring then they aren't the same kind.

Post #90 shows that the Bible considers bats to be of the bird kind, and Genesis 1:21 refers 'water kinds' as "Great whales, and every living creature that moveth".

It's too general a term.

 

[eleos1954]

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.

It's talking about clean and unclean animals .... not their animal family.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's talking about clean and unclean animals .... not their animal family.

And yet it's the only time the Bible makes the attempt to comment on bats, since the only other time anything flying is mentioned is in Genesis 1:20: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

 

[eleos1954]

And yet it's the only time the Bible makes the attempt to comment on bats, since the only other time anything flying is mentioned is in Genesis 1:20: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

Not every single animal species is listed in the bible .... again ... the verses you are quoting is in regard to clean and unclean animals ... and no .... we aren't supposed to eat bats.

CONTEXT

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not every single animal species is listed in the bible .... again ... the verses you are quoting is in regard to clean and unclean animals ... and no .... we aren't supposed to eat bats.

CONTEXT

And yet we can eat bats. Anything can be eaten if its prepared properly. Even humans. Though that last one should be rule number for cooking.

But again, in context, your claim is bogus. The writers of the Bible listed bats with birds because they thought that bats were birds. They didn't know they were mammals, they just knew they flew.

And also, you're doing nothing to show that Kind is an actual thing.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That you are ignoring the evidence and asking nonsensical questions is noted.

I'm just responding to the post in front of me, expecting me to think according to your context is absurd.

 

[eleos1954]

And yet we can eat bats. Anything can be eaten if its prepared properly. Even humans. Though that last one should be rule number for cooking.

But again, in context, your claim is bogus. The writers of the Bible listed bats with birds because they thought that bats were birds. They didn't know they were mammals, they just knew they flew.

And also, you're doing nothing to show that Kind is an actual thing.

sure .... we can eat anything even dog poop .... but that doesn't mean it's good for us ... and that is what was being stated .... these foods are ok for you .... these foods are not ok for you.

The word mammal hadn't been invented yet .... because it hadn't don't mean there were not many different kinds of animals.

God created the animals ... Adam and mankind going forward named them.

You are assuming things that are not there.

No my context is not bogus .... your's is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

sure .... we can eat anything even dog poop .... but that doesn't mean it's good for us ... and that is what was being stated .... these foods are ok for you .... these foods are not ok for you.

The word mammal hadn't been invented yet .... because it hadn't don't mean there were not many different kinds of animals.

God created the animals ... Adam and mankind going forward named them.

You are assuming things that are not there.

No my context is not bogus .... your's is.

You said that Kind reproduces after Kind. If we take the Bible's identification of Kind literally, then that leaves far too much wriggle room on what animal belongs to which Kind.

If you want to be sincere and just mean species, then say species.

 

[Bradskii]

able to reproduce - defines kind --- if the two can not produce off spring then they aren't the same kind.

A penguin is a bird. An emu is a bird. Are they the same 'kind'? A koala is a marsupial as is a kangaroo. Are they the same kind? A dwarf gecko (half an inch long) is a lizard. As is a Komodo dragon - 10 feet long. Are they the same 'kind'. A bee is an insect as is an ant. Same 'kind'?

 

[Shemjaza]

able to reproduce - defines kind --- if the two can not produce off spring then they aren't the same kind.

This causes two problems for the Creationist narrative.

Firstly there are ring species:
Species A -> can breed with Species B -> can breed with Species C -> can breed with Species D -> can't breed with A

This means that if species B and C were to go extinct, then you'd have no way to know that in the past species A and D could form a loose breeding population.


The second problem with reproduction as a marker of "kind" is that there are far more kinds than could ever fit on a boat in the global flood narrative.

 

[eleos1954]

You said that Kind reproduces after Kind. If we take the Bible's identification of Kind literally, then that leaves far too much wriggle room on what animal belongs to which Kind.

If you want to be sincere and just mean species, then say species.

I go by whats stated in His word. God decided how reproduction would occur.

The biological species concept connects the idea of a species to the process of evolution.

I don't believe in evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I go by whats stated in His word. God decided how reproduction would occur.

The biological species concept connects the idea of a species to the process of evolution.

I don't believe in evolution.

I'll admit; at least you're honest about that.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm just responding to the post in front of me, expecting me to think according to your context is absurd.

It's your context we are using. The context where 'kind' differentiates between creatures. So a fish is a 'kind'. But if it evolves to become a land based creature, then does it become a different 'kind'? Again, the context is yours. The terminology is yours. The definition is yours. What we need is clarification.