Study in Nature shoots down three basic claims of evolutionary theory

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@NonlinOrg

“Species” and “speciation” are meaningless words that lack even a clear definition.

@NonlinOrg

We have given you a perfectly clear definition of species and speciation perhaps a dozen times.

You do not seem to understand them, and thus Evolution is hopelessly beyond your grasp.

[Socratic.Fanatic]

@gbrooks9

You do not seem to understand them, and thus Evolution is hopelessly beyond your grasp.

I find it fascinating that so many evolution-denialists don’t grasp the fact that species have “fuzzy non-boundaries” precisely because evolutionary processes keep them in continual states of transition. That is, every organism which is able to reproduce is a “transitional form” and playing a role in evolution of its population group.

Indeed, if the term “species” were super-easy to define, that would be a powerful argument against the Theory of Evolution!

[Lynn_Munter]

@Socratic.Fanatic

Indeed, if the term “species” were super-easy to define, that would be a powerful argument against the Theory of Evolution!

Meanwhile, I would love to see a good workable definition of a biblical ‘kind!’

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Lynn_Munter

Meanwhile, I would love to see a good workable definition of a biblical ‘kind!’

@Lynn_Munter

Haven’t we already gone through this exercise? It’s the same as Myer’s genetic definition:

a “kind” brings forth generations of the kind.

Horses and Donkeys are not the same kind, because mules are sterile and can bring forth no next generation.

Attempts to make “kind” equal to “a group of similar looking animals” is a bankrupt concept from the get go. It doesn’t fit the description in Genesis, and it doesn’t fit the reality of reproductive compatibility.