Replies

So, in response to my request for an explanation of what you perceive to be the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution, you direct me (again) to a web page that says, well, not much. Indeed, all its says on the matter is the following:

1. Incorrect Distinction:

o There is a difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution.

o Evidence given for evolution is (almost always) evidence of micro-evolution, basically that's small changes within species.

o Everybody accepts that micro-evolution (commonly known just as "evolution") occurs.

o Evidence for (micro) evolution is not evidence for macro evolution, darwinian evolution, or big changes from one species to another.

While most of this is just bald assertion, there is the statement that "micro" evolution is "basically just small changes within species." The word "basically" in that statement is, of course, the fudge word, inserted to permit free movement of the goalposts when needed.

But lets assume for now that you take "micro" evolution as, literally, "small changes within species." This would mean, by inference, that you view "macro" evolution as speciation.

The problem here (hence the fudge word, I assume) is that speciation has been observed.

See, e.g.,

Observed Instances of Speciation, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

(a sample monograph) Evidence For Parallel Ecological Speciation in Scincid Lizards of the Ecumeces Skiltonianus Species Group (Squamata: Scincidae), by Jonathan Q. Richmond, and Tod W. Reeder, at http://www.bio.sdsu.edu/pub/tod/Evol2002.pdf

A concise discussion of Ring Species, at http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm

Ergo, "macro" evolution has been observed, if one takes literally a definition with speciation as the demarcation line.

In recognition of this problem, the creationist solution is to simply move the line between "micro" and "macro" into more nebulous territory. Thus, we have another creationist site stating the following:

"[W]hen creationists say they believe microevolution occurs, what they really mean is that they believe variations within a kind of animal or plant occurs. Sometimes these variations can lead to a new species, and in some cases, even a new genus. But the variations have limitations. That limitation is within the genetic information of the organism. For instance, dogs can produce numerous varieties of dogs, but they will never produce a fundamentally different kind of animal, such as a cat (similar perhaps in shape and form, but an entirely different kind of animal). It’s just not within their genetic content. In my experience, evolutionists will quickly question exactly what a "kind" is. I’ll admit that it is partially true that creationists don’t have a definite definition of what a kind is, but this shouldn’t be cause for concern. Evolutionists don’t have a definite definition on what a species is either...."

See, http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/micromacro.htm (emphasis added).

I will assume in advance that you are in agreement with the above statement. If you are not, perhaps you could tell me why.

Based upon that assumption (which may correct me on if you wish), I also assume that you would concede that Genesis has sufficient "uncertainties" to accommodate speciation and the development of new genus or two.

Genesis is thus becoming an increasingly flexible framework, accommodating of evolution (and, according to you, an old earth) to a remakable degree.

We are apparently left only with the notion of "kinds" as the line beyond which Genesis will not permit evolution.

Perhaps you would be willing to venture a possible "definite" definition of a "kind".

And perhaps you would be willing to tell me whether you perceive hominids as a singular "kind".

It would be most interesting to continue this discussion.