What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[The Grand Nudger]

"Birds" "fish" and "reptiles" are not species...so that's an irrelevance.  If some population of birds, fish, or reptiles speciates..they will still be birds..fish, or reptiles.  

Speciation, for it's part, has been observed both in the lab and in the field.

[He lives]

I'm not sure what belief has to do with it.  Yes..of course..mammals have always been mammals.  That a mammal is a mammal is even less than a tautology.....?  Can you find a single mammal that isn't a mammal and hasn't always been a mammal?

Nope. I agree with you on that.

[drfuzzy]

OFC not..and, conveniently, we didn't..so what's the problem?  

All descendants of mayflies will always be mayflies, no matter what else they become.  Just as all descendants of eukarya are eukaryotic, all animalia are animals, all chordata possess notochords, all vertebrata have spines, all mammalia are mammals, all primatae are primates, all hominidae are hominids, so on and so forth.

Whatever our children may one day become.."homo sapiens" will appear in their full classification.

So you believe that plants have always been plants, reptiles have always been reptiles,, and mammals have always been mammals etc?

Don't you know how to use Google?  
Plants evolved from a single type of green algae.  Good info on plants     Mammals evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids between 275 to 310 million years ago.  Wait around 300 million years, (if we don't destroy our planet and each other) and humans might be something different, if we merge with technology or have to adapt to a different planet . . . who knows . . . but the base will be homo sapiens.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure what belief has to do with it.  Yes..of course..mammals have always been mammals.  That a mammal is a mammal is even less than a tautology.....?  Can you find a single mammal that isn't a mammal and hasn't always been a mammal?

Nope. I agree with you on that.

Then we both agree with evolutionary biology, on that.

[drfuzzy]

You can't possibly have paid proper attention to the actual science if you're ignorant enough to present that mayfly analogy.  Any educated teenager can tell you that time and reproduction are not the only driving forces of the natural selection process.  They could also show you current, ongoing examples of evolution being measured and documented.
Mayflies.  Seriously?  That one was even more ridiculously ignorant than the 747 example.  Give it up, troll poe.  You dig your painfully obvious ignorance hole deeper with every post.
Mayflies.     You didn't graduate from middle school, did you?  Or are you from a long line of sisters and brothers marrying each other - like the fantasy offspring of "Adam and Eve".

You only hold your position because you've been told all of your life that an absurd book of fairy tales is literal truth, and that your sky demon imaginary monster god will fry you forever if you dare to question it.  That's the only possible answer for rejecting hard science in favor of delusions.

Bold added. These are examples of adaptation, not evolution, there was no species change here. The birds are still birds, fish are still fish, reptiles are still reptiles etc.

"Species change" is not the only measure of evolution.  A greater population with physical traits that would have been unusual a few generations before also qualifies.
But yes, species change is being measured in short spans, most often as a result of environmental changes.  

2015 Discover article:  http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/1...-fast-lane
"Most recently, evolutionary biologist Yoel Stuart found that green anole lizards on islands in Florida’s Indian River Lagoon needed just 20 generations to adapt to an invasion of brown anoles. Driven to higher perches by the invaders, the green anoles became better at clinging to branches by developing larger toepads with more scales — in just 15 years. It’s more evidence of “evolutionary change on observable time scales,” says Stuart, now at the University of Texas at Austin."

[He lives]

"Birds" "fish" and "reptiles" are not species...so that's an irrelevance.  If some population of birds, fish, or reptiles speciates..they will still be birds..fish, or reptiles.  

Speciation, for it's part, has been observed both in the lab and in the field.

Do you agree that when birds reproduce they always produce other birds? Isn't the same thing true of fish, reptiles, mammals, and insects?

[The Grand Nudger]

If a nightingale gave birth to an elephant, we'd be scratching our heads.  Incidentally, this would also falsify evolutionary biology. I thought we already agreed with evolutionary biology in this regard, though?

[vorlon13]

A more creative (perhaps) attitude may prevail in the future and human derived critters will be engineered to fill slots in the ecosphere that inevitably will become open or will exist due to humans being the only large species left on the planet.


A nonsentient (and delicious) human derived form might be designed to survive on offal/waste that will be plentiful and it's DNA will be tweaked so it tastes like steak . . . .

[The Grand Nudger]

Homo Coprophagensis Domesticus. 

[He lives]

If a nightingale gave birth to an elephant, we'd be scratching our heads.  Incidentally, this would also falsify evolutionary biology.  I thought we already agreed with evolutionary biology in this regard, though?

I agree on adaptation. I believe that God gave every living thing the ability to adapt (within reason) to it's environment.