Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[eyemixer]

I like how AiG says it, if the two animals could breed with each other.

Hey, look at that, a definition I can work with! Let's see how fast I can make you retract it.

Here is a scientific paper, detailing

---

an experiment in which two groups of fruit flies were isolated from one another and given differing food sources, for several generations. When the flies were reintroduced to each other... they could not interbreed.

According to your own AiG source, we have scientific proof- repeated several times by different scientists, by the way- of one kind evolving into another kind. That's literally using the definition you just gave us. Evolution occurs.

---

*Drops mic*

That said, I fully expect you to come out with something typically ignorant, like "they're still fruit flies, though!" to which I'll remind you in advance that you just said the definition of "kind" is the ability to interbreed, so the problem is with your definition, not with the science. Additionally, even under the strictures of real science and not your biblically-based obfuscations, this is still considered evolution, so you would be factually wrong anyway. I know it's much easier to consider all of these taxonomic classifications in terms of what intuitively feels like they should go together, but there are multiple species of any one "kind," by that standard. This idea you keep pimping that we don't see one species evolving into another is just factually wrong.

In fairness to Rev, he has not yet responded to my question if inter breeding is the only requirement for a 'kind'. If so, your argument stands, if not, additional requirements to be in the same 'kind' can be added forever and the goal posts never get set.

That said, if Rev is unwilling to respond to my multiple requests for HIS definition of what a 'kind' is, your accusation of him intentionally failing to provide a definition for 'kind' in order to disingenuously shift the goalposts becomes impossible to invalidate.