What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[inquiring mind]

So that's a case of evolution from one species to another. They obviously came from the same genetic ancestor, the original equine, and then horses and donkeys evolved over time.

Ergo macroevolution.

As I said, that's according to science's classification system. But, they are the same kind (with variations).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As I said, that's according to science's classification system. But, they are the same kind (with variations).

Using the broadest definition of Kind.

But it's still speciation, one species to another.

 

[inquiring mind]

Using the broadest definition of Kind.

But it's still speciation, one species to another.

No, its a variation of one kind.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

As I said, that's according to science's classification system. But, they are the same kind (with variations).

How many pairs of chromosomes did the original Equus "kind" have? Which diverged first - Horse or Donkey?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, its a variation of one kind.

Speciation. The horse, Equus Ferus Caballus, is a different species to the donkey, Equus Africanus Asinus.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

As I said, that's according to science's classification system. But, they are the same kind (with variations).

Also, do your macroevolution objections only encompass animal evolution or do you feel the same with regard to plants? Are there plant "kinds" as well? Why or why not?

 

[inquiring mind]

How many pairs of chromosomes did the original Equus "kind" have?

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

Why can't we use science to investigate your Biblical claims?

 

[inquiring mind]

Speciation. The horse, Equus Ferus Caballus, is a different species to the donkey, Equus Africanus Asinus.

According to science's classification system, but its the same kind.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

According to science's classification system, but its the same kind.

But it's a different species. Speciation, thus macroevolution.

You can quibble over it all you want, but it's still an example of speciation.

 

[inquiring mind]

Why can't we use science to investigate your Biblical claims?

But it's a different species. Speciation, thus macroevolution.

You can quibble over it all you want, but it's still an example of speciation.

Do you think a species is a kind?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you think a species is a kind?

I don't believe that Kind is a meaningful term to use in biology.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

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.

Well, we're talking about real things, right? I'm not speaking hypothetically. I'm not even asking you to define "kind" and am accepting your term however you mean it. But I am asking a question about real things that are observed in the real world. So, within the context of Creationism and kinds and all that... can you answer the questions about the very real things that are horses and donkeys? Plants?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

According to science's classification system, but its the same kind.

How do you know?

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't believe that Kind is a meaningful term to use in biology.

Species is a science-made term; Kind is a biblical term. Kind and species are not necessarily the same. You keep asking what a kind is and I’ve given my answer, but what is a species? It’s my understanding there is not a clear-cut answer for it, or at least one without a gray area. But, that didn't matter, kinds do not change and that was a problem for science and macroevolutionists, even before Darwin put it into words.

 

[inquiring mind]

How do you know?

Because their parents could breed 'according to their kind.'

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Species is a science-made term; Kind is a biblical term. Kind and species are not necessarily the same. You keep asking what a kind is and I’ve given my answer, but what is a species? It’s my understanding there is not a clear-cut answer for it, or at least one without a gray area. But, that didn't matter, kinds do not change and that was a problem for science and macroevolutionists, even before Darwin put it into words.

Except that it really isn't a problem since no two Creationists can agree on what a Kind is. Species, though a bit flimsy, is more clear cut than Kind so it is useful for science.
As a point in fact, the Bible refers to bats and birds as both Kinds, flying Kind, when we know that is demonstrably wrong since bats and birds are two different beings all together.

I've only asked what a Kind is twice, and I've been asking you to clarify what it is with the horse example. Which, I will admit, you actually have done, since you personally equate Kind to mean the Family of a species (Equine in the horse example), but your standard for why speciation and macroevolution doesn't apply to it is what I'm contentious about. Horses and donkeys are two separate species. They can interbreed, yes, but their offspring (both hinny's and mules) is more often than not sterile.

 

[inquiring mind]

Except that it really isn't a problem since no two Creationists can agree on what a Kind is.

Well, they're probably grilled about it from a scientific perspective and who knows where that can go. But the bible is quite clear and repetitive that all things are to reproduce according to their kind. To me, that is obvious that the requirement for kind is that the parents can breed. If they can't, they are different kinds.

As a point in fact, the Bible refers to bats and birds as both Kinds, flying Kind, when we know that is demonstrably wrong since bats and birds are two different beings all together.

Do bats and birds breed?

I've only asked what a Kind is twice, and I've been asking you to clarify what it is with the horse example. Which, I will admit, you actually have done, since you personally equate Kind to mean the Family of a species (Equine in the horse example), but your standard for why speciation and macroevolution doesn't apply to it is what I'm contentious about. Horses and donkeys are two separate species. They can interbreed, yes, but their offspring (both hinny's and mules) is more often than not sterile.

Offspring is the same kind, whether it is fertile or not has nothing to do with it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, they're probably grilled about it from a scientific perspective and who knows where that can go. But the bible is quite clear and repetitive that all things are to reproduce according to their kind. To me, that is obvious that the requirement for kind is that the parents can breed. If they can't, they are different kinds.

Why is it bad that they look at it from a scientific perspective? If you want to argue science, then you need to use science. Why is that a bad thing to you?

Do bats and birds breed?

Not with each other. Mammals and birds cannot breed with each other.

Offspring is the same kind, whether it is fertile or not has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, it kind of does since it shows that they are two species, which come about through speciation, aka macroevolution.

 

[inquiring mind]

As a point in fact, the Bible refers to bats and birds as both Kinds, flying Kind, when we know that is demonstrably wrong since bats and birds are two different beings all together.

Not with each other. Mammals and birds cannot breed with each other.

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.