Replies

"There areobservable species boundaries."

Don't rely on your eyes - they'll lie to you far too often. Two animals that may look similar may be totally different species.

This isn't the eyes. This is actually the result of breeding experimentation for tens of centuries. There _are_ observable species boundaries.

Also, the lines between species isn't always clear. I think there are cases where breeding can still occur between genera. Classification isn't all its cracked up to be.

A progressive fossil record is the evidence, showing change through time. This is not equivalent with proof for evolution. Creationism allows for both (a) progressive creation, and (b) certain kinds of speciation. Both of which equate to change over time. However, thousands of years of breeder experimentation has shown that there are, indeed, limits to change.

Darwin's view on this was simply that nature both causes and allows more change than breeding. However, this is pretty much just conjecture.

However, this is pretty much just conjecture

And the idea that a space alien just snapped her fingers and there were creatures is not speculation?

I think it's a lot more believable that species evolved over time, given the fossil record at hand.

Yes, there are holes in the record. Just like there are holes in the evidence on what happened on 9/11.

But the idea that 19 arab hijackers did 9/11, and that evolution changed species over time are both the most practical answers.

Whether God was involved, in either case, is outside the realm of science.

"This is actually the result of breeding experimentation for tens of centuries. There _are_ observable species boundaries."

Your evidence for this is that in the relative blink of an eye that we've been watching, we haven't seen an enormous change in a single species. The ToE says that it's highly unlikely you would. Elephants don't hatch from spider eggs. The so-called boundaries haven't been tested over any significant length of time, nor have they been tested under controlled conditions which would simulate the conditions optimal for faster divergent evolution.

"Also, the lines between species isn't always clear. I think there are cases where breeding can still occur between genera. Classification isn't all its cracked up to be."

There are rare cases of members of different species producing viable offspring (lions and tigers, for instance), but that just goes to show that mother nature is far more intricate and fascinating than our boring classification system would like her to be.

"A progressive fossil record is the evidence, showing change through time. This is not equivalent with proof for evolution."

It most certainly isn't. Sitting here for a few million years would provide the proof necessary to discount or finally accept the ToE. I've got some spare time, but not that much.

"Creationism allows for"

It allows for anything under the sun. In fact, Creationism inherently explains each and every possible scenario, regardless of how bizarre or how unexpected it may be, with the words, "that's how God wanted it".

In other words, there's not a shred of science involved.

"Darwin's view on this was simply that nature both causes and allows more change than breeding. However, this is pretty much just conjecture."

Not at all - Darwin never said that breeding couldn't bring about the same kinds of changes as the normal evolutionary process. One should note, however, that to obtain the truly remarkable results we have today with a modern-day creature, one would have to spend a few million more years of breeding under the right environmental conditions while allowing natural selection to do its deed.