Yes, but how did it all get started in the first place?

[Autodidact]

But you were saying that the fossil record matches the Genesis account, so you must have had something in mind. Please explain exactly how the fossil record matches the Genesis account.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes, millions of them.

According to Genesis, God creates animals in this order:
1. All the fish and birds at once.
2. All the land animals at once.

So we should see a single older layer with fish and bird fossils, and a single newer layer with land animals. Further, all the land animals should appear in the same age layers, whether dinosaurs, mammmals or reptiles. The oldest layers should have birds, but no land animals. This is not what the fossil layer reflects.

Does the fossil record reflect gradual changes in the fossils?

 

[camanintx]

Does the fossil record reflect gradual changes in the fossils?

Yes, it does.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

All those varieties depicted are within the horse family.
How does that document the history of the horse family?
Even today don't horses vary in from pony to plow yet still within the horse kind?

 

[Storm]

All those varieties depicted are within the horse family.

Killer whales and people are "within the horse family?" :biglaugh:

Even today don't horses vary in from pony to plow yet still within the horse kind?

Define a "kind."

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Kind is where one kind can not any longer reproduce with another.

 

[Storm]

So, what "kind" is a mule?

ETA: Still ignoring the orca chart, I see. It must be damned inconvenient.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Mule is the end of its kind (horse family) because it can not reproduce.

 

[Autodidact]

Does the fossil record reflect gradual changes in the fossils?

Yes, it does.

 

[Autodidact]

All those varieties depicted are within the horse family.
How does that document the history of the horse family?
Even today don't horses vary in from pony to plow yet still within the horse kind?

What on earth is a "kind?" Are you saying a "kind" is a family?

 

[Autodidact]

Kind is where one kind can not any longer reproduce with another.

Oh, so "kind" is a species then?

 

[logician]

A lot of people say 'Hey, I know that evolution happens, cos look at fruit flies or viruses etc...'or 'look at the fossil record.' Never mind all that. How did it all get going in the first place? It is mathematically impossible. As that's the case, the case for evolution is pretty much closed isn't it?

Actually, some sort of life starting is a mathematical certainty.

 

[camanintx]

All those varieties depicted are within the horse family.
How does that document the history of the horse family?
Even today don't horses vary in from pony to plow yet still within the horse kind?

Are Rhinos and Tapirs also within the horse family?

When all of these "kinds" converge on a common form, why shouldn't we conclude common ancestry? If they have been distinct "kinds" since creation, shouldn't we find the same forms back in the Eocene?

 

[Kerr]

Kind is where one kind can not any longer reproduce with another.

That is a bit like a specie, and we have observed new species coming into life.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The creative days (unknown length) show things appearing suddenly.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/90416-length-creation-day.html

:slap:

 

[Storm]

Oh, so "kind" is a species then?

That is a bit like a specie, and we have observed new species coming into life.

Can't be a species, as some can interbreed (like dogs and wolves).

 

[Tristesse]

Can't be a species, as some can interbreed (like dogs and wolves).

or like female horses and male donkeys, which produces a completely different species, a mule.

 

[Valjean]

Defining a species as two kinds that can reproduce was a convenience before modern genetic analysis was possible. It doesn't always accurately reflect genetic similarity.

Biologists today prefer illustrating descent with cladistics and phylogenetic trees.

The ancients had no concept of evolution, descent with modification or even basic biology. They would have been baffled by our attempts to confer some kind of technical meaning to their usage of "kind."

 

[Kerr]

Can't be a species, as some can interbreed (like dogs and wolves).

True. However, I think that in most cases those that can interbreed would produce non-fertile offspring (do not know if it is most or all, though).

 

[Valjean]

The ability to produce fertile offspring isn't a reliable indicator of genetiic similarity. It's an obsolete distinction.