Macro evolution is a theoretical and practical impossibility

[RBD]

Here's the theory of macro evolution: A parent species produces an offspring species, that cannot reproduce the parent species, but only their own new species.

Question: How can one species be the parent of another species, that it cannot reproduce with? And vica versa, how can a species be the offspring of another species, that it cannot reproduce with? Can a parent produce an offspring, that cannot possibly be a produced offspring of that parent, else they could reproduce the same species...

Macro evolutionary impossibility: A parent species produces an offspring species, that is not the offspring of that parent, nor is the parent of that offspring, because there is no reproduction between them. By definition they cannot reproduce one from the other...And it must be within a single generation, else when and where is that last generation of the old, and the beginning generation of the new?

A 'macro;-difference within a single generation is impossible: One species, that can only produce after it's own kind, cannot produce another species, that cannot produce after it's own kind.

And so, macro-evolution cannot be evolutionary, which is by definition only incremental over many generations, not produced in a single generation.

Macro evolution is an ideology built upon a theoretical impossibility, that ideologically rejects the only possibility for macro production of a whole new species, and has no parent to reproduce with: Macro creation.

[RBD]

The macro-evolutionist loves to go on and on about all those great many generations of incremental change from one species to another; But they never want to so much as speak of that one single necessary last generation of completed change: That old parent species never really finally at long last gets to produce that entirely new offspring species?

Mostly, as in Darwin's finches, and Hawaiian insects, it's geographic isolation that results in speciation.

So far, not just mostly, but always Darwin's ideologues isolate their incremental generations, from that one last generation that must conclude in complete speciation from the previous generation.

If there is no single last parent generation, that produces a wholly new species, that cannot reproduce as the parent, then speciation never concludes in practice. But rather remains a continuously incremental theory, that never ever ends in the theorized result.

Just as the infinite X-Y graph of continuous proximity, that never meets on the same graph: The old x-species never ever produces the new y-species.

And where there is no last single generation of parent species, that concludes with a whole new species, then there is no generation of concluded speciation, but just blind faith in X meeting Y.

This is natural common sense of practical fact, that the only an indoctrinated ideologue would turn a blind eye to. This is proof that macro-evolutionary species is not a natural science, but rather an ideological natural religion made to deny origin of the species by creation.

The theory is practically impossible, because there is no practical end.

Being well-adapted to the environment seems like a pratical end to me. Survival counts.

And so, the blind eye must revert back to micro-evolution within a single species, which is not being challenged...

Why not? Because by definition of evolutionary change, and natural intelligence, one species' seed cannot possibly reproduce a different seed of species.

But it has. Polyploidy mutations are a common speciation event in plants, for example.
https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/13 ... ogin=false

And now the blind eye turns to simple hybridization within a species, rather than macro-evolutionary speciation between wholly different species of fish vs amphibian, primate vs man.

I've seen the same willful blindness to the practical challenges of other religions, including faith-alone Christianity. When their self-justifying blind faith is proven functionally impossible, they likewise ignore it, or irrelevantly talk around it.

The religion of macro-evolutionary ideology is theoretically and functionally impossible: A fish species has not, nor can produce an amphibian species. A primate species has not, nor can produce a man child. Not over many many many never-ending generations, and especially not in any one single last generation of a practical final product.

[The Barbarian]

The macro-evolutionist loves to go on and on about all those great many generations of incremental change from one species to another; But they never want to so much as speak of that one single necessary last generation of completed change: That old parent species never really finally at long last gets to produce that entirely new offspring species?

Mostly, as in Darwin's finches, and Hawaiian insects, it's geographic isolation that results in speciation.

So far, not just mostly, but always Darwin's ideologues isolate their incremental generations, from that one last generation that must conclude in complete speciation from the previous generation.

No need for that. Reproductive isolation isn't a sudden moment. For example, it's sometimes possible to get separate species to interbreed in captivity, even if it never happens in nature. As Darwin pointed out, speciation would be a gradual process in most cases. And evidence confirms his prediction.

The theory is practically impossible, because there is no practical end.

Being well-adapted to the environment seems like a practical end to me. Survival counts.

And so, the blind eye must revert back to micro-evolution within a single species, which is not being challenged...

Even honest YE creationists admit the fact of speciation. Would you like me to show you again?

Why not? Because by definition of evolutionary change, and natural intelligence, one species' seed cannot possibly reproduce a different seed of species.

But it has. Polyploidy mutations are a common speciation event in plants, for example.
https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/13 ... ogin=false

And now the blind eye turns to simple hybridization within a species, rather than macro-evolutionary speciation between wholly different species of fish vs amphibian, primate vs man.

By definition, they are two species, since they cannot interbreed with each other.

The religion of macro-evolutionary ideology is theoretically and functionally impossible:

See above. We observe exactly what you claim is impossible.

A fish species has not, nor can produce an amphibian species.

Mudskippers are fish. Yet they move about on land, breath air and even climb trees. Like amphibians, they have to return to the water to mate and reproduce. But there you are.

A primate species has not, nor can produce a man child.

Happens every day, all over the world.

[RBD]

Macro-evolution speciation between two different classes of nonbreeding species, by definition of two separated species, is impossible. An ever-incremental process without any possible practical conclusion:

The apple seed cannot produce an orange, that only now as orange seed, though it was only an apple before. Being two completely different botanical families, they cannot even produce an apple-orange hybrid. Therefore, when does the evolving apple seed become the evolved orange seed? Not possible.

So also with separated classes of species: A fish species can never produce an amphibian species, that now only reproduces amphibians. And likewise there can never be a fish-amphibian hybrid, due to their genetics, reproductive systems, and embryonic development being entirely incompatible today.

Natural common sense would conclude, that they never have been compatible. But the macro-evolutionary declaration, is that they are not now compatible, because they diverged on the evolutionary tree about 400 millions of years ago. Not because they never could.

Ideological indoctrination 101: A proven impossibility of today, is stated as a proven fact of yesterday...And so long ago yesterday, that it can't be disproven.

Except of course, the theory itself can be disproven by proven natural science and sense: Way, way, way long ago on earth, there still had to be one single final generation of a naturally evolved amphibian species, that was incompatible with any fish species. Else that naturally evolved amphibian species never existed, to become incompatible with any fish species.

Also, that first generation of evolved amphibian species, that was then specifically incompatible with the fish species, also had to be produced from a fish species, not an amphibian species, else it was simply a reproduced amphibian.

Therefore, contrary to natural science of the species, there had to be a fish compatible with amphibians, in order to produce an amphibian, else that amphibian offspring was incompatible with it's own fish parent: A double negative impossibility. A fish species cannot produce an amphibian, that is incompatible with the fish species. And that fish must be incompatible with the amphibian species, else it's not a fish, but only another amphibian...Otherwise, natural science of the species must be changed to allow for macro-evolution from one species to breed another species, that are now two incompatible classes of species.

Macro-evolutionary speciation demands that the evolved species be incompatible with it's own parent, which is incompatible with natural breeding of any species. The only way for macro speciation to possibly exist, is not by natural selection with incremental evolution, but only by instant artificial genetical engineering. or of course, by intelligent original creation of the species.

[RBD]

Another variation of impossible macro-evolutionary speciation:

There must be that first single generation of the evolved species, that is incompatible with it's immediate preceding generation. If there is no first generation of an evolved amphibian incompatible with any fish species, then there never was an evolved amphibian species....

And so, we must go way way way back to that yesterday, when that incompatible new species diverged from the incompatible old species.

Macro-evolutionary speciation, curiously enough, only speaks of the incremental long term process of past changing, but never about the single last generation of completed change. Indeed, when asked about a fish producing an amphibian, or a primate producing a man child, they scoff at the uneducated ignorance of such an absurdity.

But, if we put in their own lingo-educata: When does a fish species produce an amphibian species, that is incompatible with any fish species, including the parent fish? I.e. after all the many many many ongoing incremental evolutionary changes from a fish species into an amphibian species, when and what was that single last generation of an evolving fish species, that did actually produce an evolved amphibian species? Which according to macro-speciation demand, could not be compatible with any fish species on earth, including it's own parent fish of that one last generation.

If that final evolutionary speciation did not separate in any single generation, from incompatible parent to incompatible offspring, then that final evolutionary generation has never occurred, yet. Therefore, macro speciation has not yet occurred on earth, and all separate incompatible classes of species today, have always been separate incompatible species of yesterday.

And so, we see how macro-evolutionary theory must always remain about the past theoretical process, and never about the practical concluding end.

A process which also is theoretically impossible according to natural science of the species: One species incompatible with another, cannot produce a species incompatible with itself: Fish producing amphibian. Which is what macro-speciation requires in it's single last generation of evolution: A final conclusion of the evolved amphibian incompatible with the evolving fish.

I.e. without any specific single ending generation, nor any identified first beginning generation, but only millions of years of an evolutionary process: A blurring and melding of the species.

The evolutionary transporter beam: The one parent species enters the transporter, and begins to blur indistinctly and meld into another new species, until it unblurs and rematerializes as the whole new species! So, that there is not identifiable ending, even specific beginning, because it's always in a blur!

The evolution tree itself is an evolutionary blur...The macro-evolutionary transporter beam tree!

Maybe the Hophornbeam tree is an unfortunate example of getting distorted, hardened, and gnarly in the blurring and melding process, like in Star trek: the Movie??

[Difflugia]

If there is no single last parent generation, that produces a wholly new species, that cannot reproduce as the parent, then speciation never concludes in practice.

This is the logical flaw in your claim, otherwise known as the Sorites paradox. The classic example is a heap of sand grains. If one removes one grain at a time, when exactly does the heap stop being a heap? We can agree that a thousand grains is a heap and a single grain is not. The lack of a bright line between the two doesn't change that, even though the transition is hard to nail down.

Another example is a car. If someone replaces one part, is it still the same car? If one keeps replacing parts, when exactly does it stop being the same car?

For a visual example, here is a color gradient:

On one end, the pixel is clearly red. On the other, the pixel is clearly blue. When exactly do the pixels stop being red and become blue? If we apply your earlier, incorrect assertion to colors instead of species, you claim that the shift from red to blue "never concludes."

The spoiler is that the fault is with language, not reality. A distinction that is binary, but poorly or vaguely defined, is the cause of the paradox. Two collections of sand grains that only differ by a few are either both heaps or neither is a heap. When they differ by many, one is a heap and the other isn't. Similarly, two populations that have diverged only slightly will still be able to reproduce together and are the same species. Two populations that have diverged much can't reproduce together and are different species. Language games are interesting, but don't ultimately change the reality they're trying to describe.

[RBD]

Right. 'Generally'

No, "genetically". Pay closer attention.

I know. Hybrids generally can breed independent of, and within parent species.

Macro-evolution for classes of species: Fish-amphibian-mammal-primate etc... forbids any breeding within the old parent species. Which must happen within the single generation of final evolution.

Macro-evolution demands a change in natural science of the species, that identifies different classes of species by their independent breeding within their own species. The fish species is incompatible with the amphibian species, and visa versa. Macro-evolution demands that a fish species breeds an incompatible amphibian species, that is incompatible with any fish species, including the so-called parent that bred it.

It's a theoretical impossibility according to natural science, as well as a self-explanatory self contradiction of terms: No class of species can possibly produce an incompatibly different class of species at any time, in any generation of the species. Hybrids are compatible with the same species, whether independent of or with the parent species.

Until you at least acknowledge the last generation necessary to produce a whole new species, no longer compatible within the parent species of that same generation, then all your arguments and examples of multi-generational changes within a species, are micro-evolution of a single species, not macro-evolution between two incompatible classes of species.

So long as a fish remains a fish over however many generations, it's never an amphibian in any single generation. Natural science with common sense 101.

[Jose Fly]

I know. Hybrids generally can breed independent of, and within parent species.

I have to ask....are you okay? I've shown you documented examples of newly evolved species that are genetically unable to interbreed with their parent species while still being able to interbreed on their own, and all you keep doing is repeating the above.

Do you think repeating "Nuh uh" over and over is an effective rebuttal?

Macro-evolution for classes of species: Fish-amphibian-mammal-primate etc... forbids any breeding within the old parent species. Which must happen within thje single generation of final evolution.

Until you at least acknowledge the last generation necessary to produce a whole new species, no longer breeding within the parent species of that same generation, then all your arguments and examples of multi-generational changes within a species, are micro-evolution of a single species, not macro-evolution between two incompatible species.

That includes all hybrid examples of new independent breeding within the same species. So long as a fish remains a fish over however many generations, it's never an amphibian in any single generation.

This is just weird. I'll ask again....are you okay? Do you have a condition that we should take into account when reading your posts? Are you very old or very young? Do you have memory or cognitive issues?

[RBD]

Macro-evolution from fish to amphibian, primate to man, etc...does not allow for any continued reproduction between the former parent species, and the wholly new offspring species.

Which again, is exactly what the Tragopogon example illustrates (no continued reproduction between the parental and newly evolved species).

A hybrid plant species still breeding within that plant species, whether independent of, or with the parent plant, is not an evolving fish species breeding an evolved amphibian species, that does not breed within any fish species. As with all such examples, they therefore do not even need any opposition research to the 'speciation' claim.

Until you address the impossible macro-evolutionary elephant in the room, you're only playing inner-species games.

It is scientifically and intellectually impossible for a fish species parent to produce a necessarily compatible amphibian species offspring, that is incompatible with any fish species, including the erstwhile compatible parent. Natural sciences of species class identification forbids it.

Nor can there ever be a fish species fossil found in the same generation of an amphibian species fossil, that it is supposed to have produced. Why not? because any fossils of a fish species found in the same generation of an amphibian species, only proves they are not the same class of species. Much less from the same parent species.

Natural science common sense 101.

[RBD]

And so, the blind eye must revert back to micro-evolution within a single species, which is not being challenged...

Even honest YE creationists admit the fact of speciation. Would you like me to show you again?

Original creation of the species does not prevent simple evolution within a species.

And Bible creationists trying to accommodate primate-man speciation into Gen 1, are just more Bible believers not believing the Bible. They are among the Buible believers that reject Bible miracles, supernatural events, and even Jesus Christ rising from the dead...

I.e. while they certainly do please the honest disbelievers, no honest Bible believer cares what they believe and think.

Mudskippers are fish. Yet they move about on land, breath air and even climb trees. Like amphibians, they have to return to the water to mate and reproduce. But there you are.

All fish are still fish, not amphibians.

Address the simple challenge: Where's the single generation in which a fish species produces an incompatible amphibian species. Otherwise, there is no generation in which fish species produced an incompatible amphibian species. And all the previous millions of years of evolutionary changes, is a fish species evolving into a fish species.

[RBD]

If there is no single last parent generation, that produces a wholly new species, that cannot reproduce as the parent, then speciation never concludes in practice.

This is the logical flaw in your claim, otherwise known as the Sorites paradox. The classic example is a heap of sand grains. If one removes one grain at a time, when exactly does the heap stop being a heap? We can agree that a thousand grains is a heap and a single grain is not. The lack of a bright line between the two doesn't change that, even though the transition is hard to nail down.

Another example is a car. If someone replaces one part, is it still the same car? If one keeps replacing parts, when exactly does it stop being the same car?

For a visual example, here is a color gradient:

On one end, the pixel is clearly red. On the other, the pixel is clearly blue. When exactly do the pixels stop being red and become blue? If we apply your earlier, incorrect assertion to colors instead of species, you claim that the shift from red to blue "never concludes."

Well, at least you tried to answer the challenge, and show where a blur has a specific beginning and ending.

The problem is that a reduced sand heap only leaves less sand, not less concrete. Dittoes colors blur into different colors, not different smells. dittoes cars reshape into different cars, not different bicycles.

We're talking about macro-evolution speciation, where the fish blurs into an amphibian, without any specific concluding generation. The old fish species never produces the new amphibian species are any specific time.

Kirk never enters the transporter beam and rematerializes as Spock.

Similarly, two populations that have diverged only slightly will still be able to reproduce together and are the same species.

Proven simple evolution within the same species. All such evolved fish are still fish, not any amphibian.

Dittoes primates evolving into hominids, that are still primates, not men and women. Peking man is an ideological misnomer for indoctrination: It's Peking primate.

Two populations that have diverged much can't reproduce together and are different species. Language games are interesting, but don't ultimately change the reality they're trying to describe.

Tell me about it. Such as the game of calling two different incompatible classes of species, diverged populations.

The indoctrinated ideologue has learned to speak of the ideology as proven fact, and so voila', all their language will say so.