Posted: Sep 22, 2018 11:00 pm
by Wortfish
Calilasseia wrote: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 ...

Some evolutionary biologists claim microevolution means change within a species whereas macroevolution means change leading to a new species. But such a shallow and cautious definition would mean that nearly all creationists accept macroevolution. However, I think macroevolution really refers to the emergence of new families, orders and phyla as we look back in time.

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.

Ken Ham and AiG accept and embrace speciation.

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

The "Kinds" diversified and speciated from a common ancestor of the particular kind. There was a dog-kind, cat-kind, worm-kind etc.

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:

Zebras and horses are of the same "kind". It is possible for them to interbreed but not with sterile offspring.