Species is an invented term, I understand that. And, in spite of the many problems of defining it, I usually don't have a problem with the word. However, in some cases, an exact meaning of the term is necessary. For example, I came across an article a while back that claimed, “Scientists are watching a new species of birds evolve in real time.” Here is an excerpt from the article:
A new finch species has been observed evolving in the space of just two generations, challenging the general consensus that evolution is a slow process involving hundreds of thousands of years.
You can see that the article gives us the impression that speciation is an example of evolution. So if the rise of a new species is to be used as an example of evolution, then yes, I'm going to ask what criteria are scientists using to define a species?
It's typical of evolutionists to make the straw man argument that creationists deny speciation. The reality is that most creationists don't deny speciation. In fact, it's a critical part of young earth creationism. God created animals according to “kinds.” Noah took terrestrial animals on the ark in pairs of “kinds.” All modern species are descended from these narrow groups. The 30+ species of modern cats are all descended from the 2 felines on the ark, for example.
When told that creationists accept speciation, evolutionists respond in one of two ways. One way is to ridicule the creation model as a type of “hyper-evolution” because the amount of diversification that has occurred during the time since the Flood is much faster than the slow, gradual process theorized by evolutionists. It's also somewhat hypocritical of them to criticize creationists for believing in rapid speciation when they post articles like the one above talking about speciation happening before their eyes.
Before I get to the second point, let me clear up a few things about this article. What is being discussed in the article is an example of hybridization, which, as I’ve already discussed above, is rather ordinary. It’s certainly not the first time we’ve observed it! Furthermore, this is a rather old story that is constantly trotted out every couple of years as though it’s news! The above article was published on 4/1/2022 (maybe it was meant to be an April Fool’s Joke?) but it’s just a rehash of the same story I found published by RT.com 11/24/2017. But Wired published an even older version 11/16/2009. You would think that, if evolution were true, they wouldn’t have to keep using the same example over and over as evidence for their theory!
Having cleared that up, let me get to my second point. The other way evolutionists respond when creationists ask for a definition of the word species, is to throw out a red herring and ask the creationist to define the term, kind. It's a red herring because, whether or not a creationist can define the word, kind, it doesn't excuse evolutionists from having to define species when it's being used in the example above.
One time, when I was debating some evolutionists on social media, one critic actually said he couldn't respond to any of my points until I gave a precise definition of kind. Really? I doubt that. I mean, there may not be an iron clad definition of the word species but I understand the term well enough to discuss it. I use the term frequently myself and only ask for a rigorous definition when evolutionists try to leverage speciation as evidence for their theory. Am I supposed to believe that evolutionists can't understand the concept of kind well enough to discuss it unless we give them an iron clad definition first? Like I said, it's a red herring.
I've discussed species and kinds on my blog before. I might not be able to give a rigorous definition of either but here are some practical definitions. I've always favored using morphology to identify a species. Once a population has enough traits in common that they can all be identified as belonging to the same group, then they earn the moniker of species. Thus bears with large bodies, white fur, long necks, and pointed faces are polar bears; bears with smaller bodies, brown fur, short necks, and shovel-shaped faces are grizzly bears. Admittedly that definition has its own difficulties but at least it acknowledges the fact that identifying a species is more subjective than objective. It also dispels the mistaken impression that species are absolutely distinct and don't reproduce together. A kind, on the other hand, is a group of organisms originally created by God that would reproduce organisms similar to themselves and includes all the varied species descended from the original group.
Think about examples of species and kinds. Dogs, wolves, and coyotes can breed together and have fertile offspring yet they are considered different species. Because of their very different anatomies, Great Danes can no longer reproduce with chihuahuas yet they are still considered the same species. Evolutionists and creationists both agree that all canines have descended from a common ancestor yet if creationists call the members of the canine group a “kind,” evolutionists act like they can't understand the term at all. //RKBentley scratches his head//
Evolutionists play word games. They constantly conflate natural selection and evolution. I’ve talked before (here) about how they casually use the word theory but harp on creationists for calling evolution a theory. They claim macroevolution is evolution above the species level but they can't even define what a species is. When pressed for a definition of species, they attempt to derail the conversation by asking creationists to define a kind instead. I agree you can't have a conversation with someone if there isn't a clear understanding of the terms being discussed. In the evolution/creation debate, evolutionists aren't interested in discussion. I know they're not stupid – they're just playing dumb. Conflate, equivocate, obfuscate. That's the tactic of evolutionists.
No comments:
Post a Comment