Posted: Aug 24, 2018 4:25 am
by Calilasseia
In the meantime, with reference to this assertion:

Wortfish wrote:Evolutionists disingenously like to claim that macroevolution just means speciation.


I'd like to know precisely which observable interactions and phenomena are purportedly being "omitted" or "ignored" by evolutionary biologists with respect to the term "macroevolution". I suspect I won't see a straight answer to this, but who knows, for once I could be mistaken ...

Meanwhile:

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Oh, and meanwhile, how many of the 101 or so papers on observed instances of speciation in my current collection, do I have to bring here to nail this creationist lie?


Creationists accept speciation.


Not all of them. I remember dealing over at TalkRational with one Ray Martinez, who asserted that species were fixed and immutable. Though I note with interest, that when pressed on the matter of what form this 'magic barrier' to speciation took, he was typically evasive in standard creationist manner. I also had much fun parading a range of fancy goldfish before him, in order to demonstrate that his "species are fixed and immutable" assertion was horseshit.

Wortfish wrote:In fact, their baraminology requires it.


Oh, you mean the made up shit they conjured up, to try and avoid having 2½ million species crowded into a wooden barge?

Wortfish wrote:From a few created kinds


Care to provide a definition of "created kinds"? Only I've yet to see a creationist who could do this successfully. For example, Jonathan Sarfati waded in on this one, with the following piece of hilarity:

Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.


So, Sarfati asserts above that [1] organisms that can interbreed are purportedly of the same "kind", but then goes on to assert that [2] er, organisms that can't interbreed could also be of the same "kind". Which leads most of us who paid attention in class, reaching for this image in response:

Image

Plus, what exactly is the "Biblical criterion for kinds" Sarfati asserts above to exist? Perhaps it's because this is yet more made up shit, that he made up the shit I quoted above for the shits and giggles. Ah, the fun of watching snake oil salemen turn themselves into human Klein bottles with their apologetic gymnastics.

Wortfish wrote:rescued on the Ark


Which was fiction. I'm aware of numerous reasons why the whole fairy story is precisely that.

Wortfish wrote:emerged all known species on earth. That is creationist dogma.


Well that's precisely the problem with creationism. It consists of the view that dogma dictates how reality behaves, regardless of how much reality pisses on said dogma.

Except that, oops, there isn't even a consensus among creationists on this matter. Different creationists have different dogmas. I've already introduced Ray Martinez above, who asserted that species were "fixed and immutable", an erroneous view of Linnaean taxonomy that died a death even before Darwin got underway.