Creation Vs Evolution; Exclusive Of One Another?

[Jeff K.]

I agree, but I don't think anyone would say that man is the furthest evolution can go. If the tool is designed to produce sequentially more complex “element” that is never really finished, God would need to stop using it at the point where He can keep “man” within the limits of His own image, which doesn't really fit with God being "in and hrough all things."

If man controls his environment before any future significant changes, then evolution stops. At least the physical evolution we presently theorize upon.

[zerinus]

The paper you just "looked at" contains plenty of historical context about

1. The undefined nature of the Biblical translation of the word "kind,"

2. appropriated during the Linnaean enthusiasm for taxonomy and systematics begun in the 17th century which

3. resulted in "kind" being taken to mean "species," despite

4. the fact that Linne himself later realized the concept was illusory, and

5. the lack of applicability to modern scientific findings.

Nowhere is it said that the word "kind" meaning "species" is some sort of divine decree. . . .

<snip>

But this does not not deny evolution, because "kind" is a fluid and ambiguous word, as is "species". . . .

<snip>

"Kind" in biblical terms is equivalent to "species" in our modern terminology. In science, "species" has a very clear and accurate definition. It is defined as a population of living organisms which can breed among themselves and produce a viable offspring. If two living organisms can mate and produce a viable offspring, they are said to belong to the same species. If they can't, then they are not. That is the scientific definition of species. "Kind" in biblical terms has exactly the same definition. They are said to be of the same "kind" if they reproduce "after their own kind". Therefore "kind" in biblical terms = "species" in modern scientific terms.

Edited January 16, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I did answer the question, but to be more clear, "kind" could be similar but not exact. You could argue that people should be cloned if you are too strict with the "kind" statement, if you accept changes upon birth, then where exactly does the change exceed the definition of kind? Think on it a bit.

See my previous reply to Jeremy. "Kind" in biblical terms has the same meaning as "species" in modern scientific terms. Thus, to produce "after their own kind" means that species do not evolve. They remain the same species forever.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Capacity for interbreeding is one definition of species, but there are more precise ones. I admit that I remain skeptical that you have read the paper carefully.

...

CV75: As I showed earlier, God is "in and through all things" in the sense that "he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things." (D&C 88) God is not physically present in my table lamp, but he comprehends table lamps. Among us Uncreated Intelligences, He is the "wisest of them all." D&C 88:67 says that if our eyes are focused on God's glory - which is his Uncreated Intelligence - our "whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in [us]; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things."

It is the "light" of Truth. If our eyes are darkened because we have not "studied things out in our minds", we cannot comprehend the Light which is Christ's life, the Temple He made of His body as a Template for the way we should take part in the Divine Council: the reconciliatory peacemakers who help to enact the At-one-ment. As D&C 6:21 says, "Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the same that came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not."

Joseph Smith said that "A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge," and "whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come." (D&C 130)

Edited January 16, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[David T]

See my previous reply to Jeremy. "Kind" in biblical terms has the same meaning as "species" in modern scientific terms. Thus, to produce "after their own kind" means that species do not evolve. They remain the same species forever.

Fifth Fundamental of Debating with zerinus

zerinus is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

When zerinus has spoken, the debate is over.

Edited January 16, 2012 by nackhadlow

[ERayR]

Considering how our bodies today are the result of organizing elements we received from our consumption of "lower species", why is it such a big deal that God might choose to organize the form of our bodies by taking it step by step through various forms before arriving at our final form? Are we somehow tainted because our day to day lives depend on "lower species"? If not, then why would we be tainted because our original existence was a result of God using lower forms to organize us?

Because the advent of mortal man is refered to scripturally as a fall not an ascension. Man fell from Celestial realms (the presence of God) not ascended from the lower realms.

[ERayR]

I'm not offended by God when he uses the materials of this world to make our physical bodies.

It is not a matter of being offended by God. It is a matter of some human being telling me I don't know the difference between ascent and descent.

[CV75]

If man controls his environment before any future significant changes, then evolution stops. At least the physical evolution we presently theorize upon.

I agree that man in his fully-designed capacity controls his enviroment, which I've posted about; I see that as part and parcel of who he is. But I don't see how the physical evolution we presently theorize upon grants him that privelege, or even if he did seize and realize using that privilege, why he allow himself to stop at "Homo sapiens" and not move on to something better.

[CV75]

CV75: As I showed earlier, God is "in and through all things" in the sense that "he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things." (D&C 88) God is not physically present in my table lamp

Yes, this is how I see Him too, and also how I see man as being in His image. Adam and Eve demonstrated that they likewise related to the world they inhabited, and so it and all things remained in paradise as long as they did, and fell right along with them when they did, precisely because their identity was inextricably interwined with the rest of creation, just as God's is.

This relates to evolution (about which I am becoming more understanding of the earlier First Presidency statements as I participate in this thread) in that for Adam to be the product of evolution, the entire paradisiacal "system of man" (including God because man is in His image) would have had to have been the product of evolution as well, including perhaps the pre-mortal system, and organic evolution just doesn't allow for such control or for anything beyond the elemental or organic.

[katherine the great]

I'm curious to know how anti evolutionists explain the other non human or pre human hominids. Homo Heidelbergensis was an awful lot like us--physically and behaviorally, but obviously much more primitive. DNA evidence aside (which is very compelling), the chain of hominid remains discovered to date show a very impressive line of creatures that are almost exactly like us from the neck down and with similar but archaic skulls that show a pretty neat progression from Homo habilis to Homo ergarster to Homo erectus or Homo antecessor to Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis to archaic humans to modern humans. They did not live contemporaneously with us. If they were not our predecessors, then what were they?

[zerinus]

I'm curious to know how anti evolutionists explain the other non human or pre human hominids. Homo Heidelbergensis was an awful lot like us--physically and behaviorally, but obviously much more primitive. DNA evidence aside (which is very compelling), the chain of hominid remains discovered to date show a very impressive line of creatures that are almost exactly like us from the neck down and with similar but archaic skulls that show a pretty neat progression from Homo habilis to Homo ergarster to Homo erectus or Homo antecessor to Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis to archaic humans to modern humans. They did not live contemporaneously with us. If they were not our predecessors, then what were they?

That is arguing from ambiguity towards certainty, which is a logical fallacy. That is why Evolution still remains very much a scientific theory, not a proven certainty.

And with that I am going to go to bed this time! I am not going to let you keep me awake all night like you have been doing during the past couple of days!

Edited January 17, 2012 by zerinus

[Nominee]

Fifth Fundamental of Debating with zerinus

zerinus is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

This is unnecessarily personal. No one here is required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

When zerinus has spoken, the debate is over.

Obviously, this is not true.

[zerinus]

This is unnecessarily personal. No one here is required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Obviously, this is not true.

Thank you! I will let you be my spokesman for the rest of the night--according to my time!

[katherine the great]

That is arguing from ambiguity towards certainty, which is a logical fallacy. That is why Evolution still remains very much a scientific theory, not a proven certainty.

And with that I am going to go to bed this time! I am not going to let you keep me awake all night like you have been doing during the past couple of days!

Okay well, get some z's (sorry, couldn't resist!) When you get up (from the other side of the world), please explain to me what you mean by this? Your answers are always so vague that I'm getting weary of communicating with you. When you have time, research these fossils that I referenced, and let me know what you think--specifically please. I could accept perhaps that we humans were a special creation that are not related physically to the rest of the animal kingdom, but I have a really hard time placing these other species in to that paradigm. If we are not related to them, then what the heck are they? We can't do DNA analysis on any of these (thus far) because they are too old, BUT we have been able to sequence the DNA of Neanderthal using mitochondrial dna and nuclear dna. The results show that they are not exactly us, but that we diverged from them around half a million years ago which fits in very well with the existing theory that Heidelbergensis/Rhodesiensis was our common ancestor. That theory was a result of studying the fossils. Look at Heidelbergensis. It's so humanlike that it's really almost creepy.

[thesometimesaint]

KtG:

I think that homo sapiens neanderthalis and homo sapiens sapiens(us) separated closer from about 50,000 to 20,000 years ago IIRC. But its been a while since I took physical anthropology so I could be wrong.

[katherine the great]

See my previous reply to Jeremy. "Kind" in biblical terms has the same meaning as "species" in modern scientific terms. Thus, to produce "after their own kind" means that species do not evolve. They remain the same species forever.

There is something pretty fundamental about evolution that I don't think a lot of people really understand. A creature doesn't suddenly give birth to a creature of another species. A wolf does not ever give birth to a fox. (which is why the chicken/dog example is so laughable.) Every animal can still breed with other members of their species from the previous generation (many generations) therefore they are still producing "after their own kind." In order for speciation to occur, there has to be a barrier to the rest of the species where there can be no gene flow. After this separation, there are many, many generations of changes that have to accumulate in the separated population before they become a separate species. After this change occurs, if they were to come back in to contact with the descendants of the "parent" species (meaning the species before the barrier happened), then they could not breed with them and have viable offspring. Sometimes, if they remain closely enough related to be in the same genus (like horses and donkeys), they can produce infertile hybrids but usually their differences in appearance and behavior interfere with their sexual attraction anyway.

[katherine the great]

KtG:

I think that homo sapiens neanderthalis and homo sapiens sapiens(us) separated closer from about 50,000 to 20,000 years ago IIRC. But its been a while since I took physical anthropology so I could be wrong.

That is incorrect. I think you are thinking about when Neanderthal went extinct.

Edited January 17, 2012 by katherine the great

[CV75]

a pretty neat progression from Homo habilis to Homo ergarster to Homo erectus or Homo antecessor to Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis to archaic humans to modern humans.

I do find the apparent progression from Homo habilis to modern humans very interesting, just as I do embryonic recapitulation (now disproven but still interesting).

I wouldn’t say I’m anti-evolution, but I am less able to reconcile it with the First Presidency statements than I was say a year ago, when I participated in a similar thread and defended evolution. In addition, I now relate more to the First Presidency statement, not because I cannot reconcile evolution as well, but because I have come across new ideas that bring me more in line with their point of view.

I don’t think the answer for me is necessarily found in being convinced one way or the other by specific evidences (because these could pile up, pro and con forever, and at the same time get disproven, forever, as interesting as they are) but in broader underlying principles.

A year ago, I would have said such things as:

Evolution is as imperfect a science as any, but has compelling evidence that can be reconciled (in terms sampled below) with prophetic revelation that comes by way of keys.

Adam was the first man as far as we are concerned.

Adam was the original human being as far as we are concerned in the covenantal sense (“duty bound”).

“Man” and “human being” are synonymous with “Homo sapiens.”

Pre-Adamites (Homo of a lower order; at least lower as far as we can tell) existed outside the Garden of Eden and are races of people, too.

Or Pre-Adamites existed in Eden and lived out their respective orders’ existence in a sequential fashion after the Fall, as not everyone departed Eden at once, Adam and Eve being the last to go (consistent with the order of creation)—this might actually be an idea against evolution.

The immortality that existed on Earth before the Fall applied only to the boundaries of the Garden of Eden.

God may have used lower orders of life to bring about the body of Adam and his descendants suitable for their spirits.

Adam began life exactly as he was, a Homo sapiens, the product of evolutionary process outside the Garden of Eden.

Science, art, religion (including some inspired theories of men) are all forms of revelation and have some truth relative to the capacity of the recipients in their time and place to endure.

I think the broader underlying principles that bear more sway with me now are:

Man is more than Homo sapiens, as is God, whose image man reflects as offspring.

Man, as God, is one with “all things,” and “all things” are dependent upon the actions of these heads in their respective spheres.

Man is co-eternal / co-existing with God reflecting an eternal scheme in relation to all other things connected with Him / him.

“The beginning” is any point on the eternal round, with the various advancing phases experienced by man being the result of being “added upon” rather than the outcome of a natural selection (why limit it to this planet?).

I think the phrase “whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both” makes these points less reconcilable with the principles of evolution.

[CV75]

If we are not related to them, then what the heck are they?

I think they are wonderful creatures that God loves with all the others, and who love Him too (D&C 77:2,3), in all their (infinite, innumerable) varieties.

Edited January 17, 2012 by CV75

[katherine the great]

I think they are wonderful creatures that God loves with all the others, and who love Him too (D&C 77:2,3).

Lol! Good one!

[dtorge26]

This relates to evolution (about which I am becoming more understanding of the earlier First Presidency statements as I participate in this thread) in that for Adam to be the product of evolution, the entire paradisiacal "system of man" (including God because man is in His image) would have had to have been the product of evolution as well, including perhaps the pre-mortal system,

I've become convinced that this is most likely a true statement actually. Evolution is founded in natural laws which are unchanging, and the most compelling evidence of God's truths would be to tie them back to completely natural principles.

and organic evolution just doesn't allow for such control or for anything beyond the elemental or organic.

Evolution needn't be specifically 'organic' in nature. The concept can be applied to any persistant object which is subject to change over time. This would include spiritual things and ideas as well. God and His plan of salvation may very well be the product of evolution which has spanned over timescales much longer than we can comprehend!

[katherine the great]

Man is more than Homo sapiens, as is God, whose image man reflects as offspring.

Man, as God, is one with “all things,” and “all things” are dependent upon the actions of these heads in their respective spheres.

Man is co-eternal / co-existing with God reflecting an eternal scheme in relation to all other things connected with Him / him.

“The beginning” is any point on the eternal round, with the various advancing phases experienced by man being the result of being “added upon” rather than the outcome of a natural selection (why limit it to this planet?).

I think the phrase “whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both” makes these points less reconcilable with the principles of evolution.

Okay, this is just way too ethereal and philosophical for me. I don't understand what you are saying.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

There are many ways we can reconcile the metaphor of the "Fall" with evolution. Here's one, culled from Genesis, the Pearl of Great Price, and such sources as the King Follett Discourse:

"The first principles of man are self-existent with God." God, like us, is an Uncreated Intelligence who "never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it." (KFD)

Joseph Smith says that “A very material difference [exists] between the body and the spirit; the body is supposed to be organized matter, and the spirit, by many, is thought to be immaterial, without substance. With this latter statement we should beg leave to differ, and state the spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body; that it existed before the body, can exist in the body; and will exist separate from the body, when the body will be mouldering in the dust; and will in the resurrection, be again united with it.”

"God," having "found himself in the midst of spirits [...] saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself." (KFD)

"Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye [uncreated Intelligences] are gods?'" (John 10:34) "I have said, 'Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.'" (Psalms 82:6) (Yet we know that the Adversary, who was once Beloved, one of the Elect, was cast out. If the Work of Justice is destroyed, Gods can cease to be worshipped as such, though no Uncreated Intelligence can be created or destroyed.)

"The reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, [is] according to the planet on which they reside." (D&C 130) "Thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time." (Abraham 3:9)

Though he personally disagrees, Kevin Barney says that Nibley favored the view that "the word [Kolob] most likely derives from the common Semitic root QLB, which has the basic meaning of “heart, center, middle” (Arabic qalb “heart, center”; Hebrew qereb “middle, midst”, qarab “to draw near”; Egyptian m-q3b “in the midst of”). In fact, qalb forms part of the Arabic names of several of the brightest stars in the sky, including Antares, Regulus, and Canopus.”

This brings us to the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus (found in our standard works). The Hathor Cow found in the lower section is called by Plutarch the “Cosmic House of Horus”, meaning this could be a symbol of the dwelling place of the Mother in Heaven. She wears the same feathers as Amun in figure 2, meaning she helps to resurrect the human race, who are symbolized by individual stars. She is an emblem of Heaven where millions of her “stars” are gathered together, named after living beings.

"Then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning [of this particular colony], and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth" by sending out seed-colonies to planets in the darkness where "there is space," taking with them "materials." (Abraham 3) Notice, by the way, the existence of more than one "Heaven" - "The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine." (Moses 1:37)

"And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate [...] and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters." The Gods went down planting Seeds of Life, "and the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth [...] every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth (ie, eventually) abundantly." (BoA)

Watch merely the first 37 seconds of this video to see why this is consistent with evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

Over the millenia, environmental constraints led to a convergence of evolution, in which creatures who were sufficiently "in the image of" the Divine Council, male and female, evolved in the midst of an ecosystem which could sustain their species,"independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." (93:30) (If you're planting Gardens on "worlds without number", you don't have time to be a God of the Gaps and fiddle with the clockwork ala Intelligent Design - you "watch" and give them "correct principles, and they govern themselves.”)

They went down to where there was "room" for them to grow, walking in the pathway which would eventually lead to "their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue" from life to life. (D&C 132)

"All the spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible to enlargement." (KFD) "Worlds without number" (Moses 1:33) have been organized to provide bodies for the Children of God. "And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many." (Moses 1:34)

According to Nibley, "Adam and Eve [are] the archetypal man and woman, in whom each of us is represented. From the most ancient times their thrilling confrontation has been dramatized in rites and ceremonies throughout the world, as part of a great creation-drama rehearsed at the new year to celebrate the establishment of divine authority on earth in the person of the king and his companion."

The Creation accounts are part of the simplified Drama of the Tabernacle in the Wilderness and the Temple. Just as the Whore of Babylon is a Type representing populations rather than a particular woman, so too Adam is called "many." (Moses 1:34) In the Temple, we are all Adams and Eves. The story is both "fictional" and "historical" at the same time - "fictional" in that the individual man and woman do not have to exist as such, but "historical" in the sense that we all really did "Fall" into our current bodies, which Adam and Eve form Templates for. in this, the fiction emulates the real life of Christ, whose Work was to Reveal to us the Temple of His Body, which is the Template for the At-one-ment - the Way, the Light, the firstfruits of apotheosis.

"And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of Wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord." (2 Nephi 21:2, quoting Isaiah) "She [the Spirit of Wisdom] is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her. The Lord by [the Spirit of] wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens." (Proverbs 3:18)

"And the Lord God formed man[kind - the Adam which is "Many"] of the dust of the ground [the "primordial slime", or whatever you want to call it], and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7) "We say that God himself is a self-existing God. Who told you so? It is correct enough, but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? [Refers to the old Bible.] How does it read in the Hebrew? It doesn't say so in the Hebrew; it says God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam's [Many's] spirit, and so he became a living body." (KFD)

"God giveth [...] a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but [after evolution and speciation] there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." (1 Corinthians 15)

"[The] fall bringeth [the inhabitation of our Uncreated Intelligences into Earthy bodies subject to] death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory." (Moses 6:59)

"And Eve, his wife, [the archetypal Woman who is Every Woman] heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient." (Moses 5:11)

We are and always have been Uncreated Intelligences, which can exist separate from our bodies. We were Adopted into the Family of God, where we lived for a time with our Heavenly Parents in the world Above, Watching as the beautiful creatures in the world Below evolved until they were suitable for us to inhabit. We were separated from our bodies [spirit-death] then Descended in the Fall to this world where mortality still reigns, to undergo a Trial as a probationary state in order to prepare for a greater Calling. We are able to recognize when something is good because we agreed with God’s purpose, which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind, in which the great principle of happiness consists of having a body in order that we might experience joy and develop sympathy for our fellows.

It's all good! Evolution is a beautiful scientific principle; unlike some other Christians, we don't believe in the vile wormlike depravity of humanity. We expressly deny that there is anything evil about "matter" - everything is a part of nature, so "organic" life is not dichotomous with spirituality. To us, the Fall was fortunate. It is all a part of the Plan of Salvation.

Edited January 17, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[zerinus]

Okay well, get some z's (sorry, couldn't resist!) When you get up (from the other side of the world), please explain to me what you mean by this? Your answers are always so vague that I'm getting weary of communicating with you. When you have time, research these fossils that I referenced, and let me know what you think--specifically please. I could accept perhaps that we humans were a special creation that are not related physically to the rest of the animal kingdom, but I have a really hard time placing these other species in to that paradigm. If we are not related to them, then what the heck are they? We can't do DNA analysis on any of these (thus far) because they are too old, BUT we have been able to sequence the DNA of Neanderthal using mitochondrial dna and nuclear dna. The results show that they are not exactly us, but that we diverged from them around half a million years ago which fits in very well with the existing theory that Heidelbergensis/Rhodesiensis was our common ancestor. That theory was a result of studying the fossils. Look at Heidelbergensis. It's so humanlike that it's really almost creepy.

There is something pretty fundamental about evolution that I don't think a lot of people really understand. A creature doesn't suddenly give birth to a creature of another species. A wolf does not ever give birth to a fox. (which is why the chicken/dog example is so laughable.) Every animal can still breed with other members of their species from the previous generation (many generations) therefore they are still producing "after their own kind." In order for speciation to occur, there has to be a barrier to the rest of the species where there can be no gene flow. After this separation, there are many, many generations of changes that have to accumulate in the separated population before they become a separate species. After this change occurs, if they were to come back in to contact with the descendants of the "parent" species (meaning the species before the barrier happened), then they could not breed with them and have viable offspring. Sometimes, if they remain closely enough related to be in the same genus (like horses and donkeys), they can produce infertile hybrids but usually their differences in appearance and behavior interfere with their sexual attraction anyway.

I think that I had already answered these questions in my previous posts. See posts #125; #215; #260; #263. I will summarise it for you as follows:

1. I don't have an explanation for the fossil records; but I do not believe Evolution is the inevitable interpretation of that data. I am sure if you use your imagination you can think of other possible explanations. Evolution is not the most compelling explanation. The reason why it looks compelling to you is because it is the one favored by the scientific community whom you trust.
   
2. The Genesis decree of species propagating only of "their own kind" I believe excludes evolutionary change as well. It not only precludes dogs giving births to cats, but of dogs morphing into cats over many million years of evolutionary change.
   
3. I don't believe man is unique in this. I believe that the prohibition of evolutionary change from one species to another applies to all living organisms God has created. Natural selection does occur and can be observed in nature; but it never leads to the evolution of one species to another, so that they can no longer mate and produce a viable offspring.
   

[zerinus]

Double post

Edited January 17, 2012 by zerinus