Confused about evolution

Originally posted by dj2becker
So where is the evidence of the "creation" of new species?

In the fossil record

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you don't know the difference between macroevolution and microevolution, then yes, you are brainwashed.

If you allow micro and macro evolution into this argument I would understand that microevolution will give rise to differing allele frequencies within populations. With differing allele frequencies comes differing morphology. Can one of you please offer up and explain the process that prevents microevolution from continuing to the point where morphologies differ radically and fertile hybrids are no longer possible (speciation)?

Secondly, could someone explain what they mean by 'kinds', how does the term sit within more commonly understood taxanomic categories?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Secondly, could someone explain what they mean by 'kinds', how does the term sit within more commonly understood taxanomic categories?

The use of the word "kinds" is one of the better reasons for accepting divine origin for scriptures. The term is vague enough that it does not foreclose the possibilities of evolution. God in his or her omnipotence understood well waht humans would discover in the future, and he or she dirested the writers to use terms that were consistent with the incipient state of natural science of the time; that is, the text is rooted in human obseravtion, and does not speculate wildly beyond the observable.

Only literalists who also make the mistake of insisting that "kinds" means species have problems; their problems emerge both in the cultivation of scientific ignorance, and also in flawed hermeneutics.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
The use of the word "kinds" is one of the better reasons for accepting divine origin for scriptures. The term is vague enough that it does not foreclose the possibilities of evolution. God in his or her omnipotence understood well waht humans would discover in the future, and he or she dirested the writers to use terms that were consistent with the incipie ...[text shortened]... roblems emerge both in the cultivation of scientific ignorance, and also in flawed hermeneutics.

Any more offers on 'kinds'?