Thread:TheSquidychicken/@comment-31308946-20170525193032/@comment-27388204-20170606104439

Oh, and something else, regarding kinds. "Kind" is an extremely unscientific term that has no taxonomical value. Due to this nature, it is frequently redefined by creationists when handy through goalpost shifting. However, if you were to abide by your bible, it defines "kind" as any animal that can breed and produce offspring. That definition is closest to the modern definition of species (organisms of the same species can produce viable offspring that themselves are capable of breeding and are not infertile, like as mules and ligers). So the original point stands that there were simply too many species present to fit on the ark. Also, don't ask me for a scientific definition of "kind". There isn't one.

In addition, if you were to use microevolution (as you define it; micro and macro evolution are actually the same thing, just over differing time scales) as an explanation for why Noah would not need to take as many animals on the ark, you still have to explain how this few thousand animals diversified into the several million present today in only a couple thousand years. We would be discovering heaps of new species every day (I would LOVE that) So in short, you are basically admitting to believing in an impossibly fast, hyperdrived version of evolution, instead of the factually based scientific version.

Another l thing I would like to cover is genetic bottlenecking. Today, cheetahs are suffering from genetic bottlenecking due to small population and resultant lack of genetic diversity, making them more vulnerable. Bear in mind, there are still hundreds of individuals present. Now, if we were to take this YEC biblical literalism seriously, that would mean that not only were we humans descended from two individuals, but every animal on Earth was also subject to an equally extreme genetic bottleneck. It is nigh impossible for any species to be able to survive from such excessive inbreeding. Period.

Finally, I would like to address the Cambrian Explosion. Once again, here we have a classic example of the God of the Gaps fallacy. Just because you think we can't explain it, doesn't mean you are by default right. And there does happen to be explanations for the sudden surge in diversity seen in the fossil record. Firstly, we have the earliest fossil evidence of sexual reproduction in Ediacaran rocks, the period before the Cambrian. This was in a worm-like organism called ''Funisia. ''Sexual reproduction allows evolution to take its cause much more effectively, as it increases the genetic diversity essential for the progress. In addition, the first predatory organisms, such as Ottoia, Santacaris, Opabinia and Anomalocaris  evolved in the early Cambrian, which started what is known as an evolutionary arms race, which would have further fuelled the diversity of organisms, as it is continuing to do today. Finally, we must take the fossilization process into account. The molluscs and arthropods present in the Cambrian possessed hard shells and exoskeletons and would have fossilized much more effectively than the soft-bodied cnidarians, worms and fractal organisms of the Precambrian. As such, we can expect to find more fossils in Cambrian rocks. I would also like to add as a side note that the fossils that were preserved from the Ediacaran show clear hints of being ancestors to the animal groups that appeared in the Cambrian. Spriggina is considered an ancestor of the arthropods, and Kinberalla an ancestor of molluscs. There are many more, though their names escape me.

So that's it for now, and please try to address all of my points. Most of the creationists I have debated were dodgers and weavers.