@
PathwayMachine But a creationist would say that a lion and a tiger are both cat "kind" while saying that humans and chimps are of different kinds even though we're more closely related.
Hate to break it to you but words have meaning and their definitions matter if they are to be used lol
Can they have fertile offspring together? That's all that matters.
So that's just the biological species concept and that's already pretty shaky. But also that's not what creationists use to group "kinds", at least not consistently.
A creationist would call an Asian and African elephant, "elephant kind" but they cannot successfully produce offspring, much less offspring which can then reproduce.
So...there's that gone.
Something changing into something it can't multiply with. It wouldn't work.
But that's how it
does work and observably so. It's called reproductive isolation and that's part of how we identify new species.
A population becomes reproductively isolated from the parent population maybe by geography or behaviour.
They're very closely related but can no longer interbreed. As they continue to diverge perhaps due to living in different habitats or occupying different niches their differences grow until they are altogether different.
So then we come back to the question i asked you earlier:
We observe that organisms can change over time with successive generations, that is a fact. What mechanism can you identify which would stop that change at x amount?
That is to say, if we know small changes happen over a little time, what prevents those small changes compounding into big changes over a lot of time?Not a monkey and a man, not a bird and a lizard, not a donkey and a horse
And nor does the theory of evolution suggest that this should be possible lol.
Seeing a line of ape skulls doesn't constitute observing Macroevolution.
Not directly, no.
But for very complete fossil lineages like we have with humans or dinosaurs or horses, evolution is the theory which most consistently, predictively and parsimoniously accounts for the fossil record we observe.
There does not exist a better explanation for the evidence.
There does not exist a coherent argument for why evolution does not account for the evidence.
So what would you like to bring to the table to suggest that evolution is not the explanation for what we see in the fossil record?
Because "nuh uh" just doesn't cut it.
