Replies

Some argue that all species were created at once but if you hold this view you have to take into consideration that the species that exist today represent only a small fraction of the overall number of species (with those that died out being by far the biggest part). So the problem is where did all these critters and plants exist? And the problem becomes even more apparent if we take into consideration that a species consisted not only of two specimen but of many more.

On the other they could have been created over a long span of time. This of course is absolutely consistent with the fossil record. So if a species died out, God could have created a new one, maybe even one that resembled the original one. But then one can ask why this doesn't happen today.

Some argue that all species were created at once but if you hold this view you have to take into consideration that the species that exist today represent only a small fraction of the overall number of species (with those that died out being by far the biggest part). So the problem is where did all these critters and plants exist? And the problem becomes even more apparent if we take into consideration that a species consisted not only of two specimen but of many more.

On the other they could have been created over a long span of time. This of course is absolutely consistent with the fossil record. So if a species died out, God could have created a new one, maybe even one that resembled the original one. But then one can ask why this doesn't happen today.

Good questions, which evolution explains. Now, I'm not a young earther and my orientation is creation over a long span. One of the things that helped cement my doubts about evolution was the reliance on and the reliability of the fossil record -- I once asked on one thread whether the brontosaurus, my childhood's most famous dinosaur, ever exisited (It's a trick question, the answer is no) to illustrate what I think is an undue dependence on fossils.

If we were to find a fossil of a chichuahua and the fossil of a great Dane would we think they were different species? I suspect yes.

Which segues into the question what exactly is a species? A common definition is something along the lines of creatues that no longer interbreed in a natural environment, a question which can't be answered via fossils, much less at what point could creatures no long fertilize the seed of others something which most occur for macroevolution to be true.

Evolution does provide a good answer as to why chimps are more like man and mice are more like rats. On the other it doesn't answer -- at least very well -- why chimps and man share the same general habitat as do mice and rats.

I would be surprised to find macroevolution to be true but I wouldn't be shocked, nor would I reject macroevolution as a partial answer to the points you raise.

Probably what troubles me more than anything is the political aspects of the debate. I would like to see the opponents of macroevolution to be taken more seriously. You shouldn't have to be an atheist a la Crick or Hoyle to heard while questioning the theory.

Are you saying speciation doesn't happen today?