If you are going to assert something, you need to provide the links.
Because the presence of links is indicative of the truth of something? Tell me, how, exactly, am I supposed to link to a room full of physical papers? The internet is great, but it’s not THAT great yet. Some educated people still prefer to physically write things down, you know.
Grey wolf would be the species, of which dog is (two) subspecies, afaict. Which makes sense, because dogs and wolves can interbreed and produce offspring which is also capable of reproduction.
Ok. You’re understanding how species work, but now look at what is called “ring species” and you begin to understand the species problem:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species We also have to worry about horses and donkeys, because they can breed and produce mules, yet mules cannot themselves breed, so are they a different species or not? Lions and Tigers too. And then lets backtrack, because for centuries mules were though to be unable to breed, and then, on extremely rare occasion, we have discovered that they do, in fact, successfully breed, yet their parent species are clearly distinct. And different plant species are crossed all the time, and they produce fertile seed. Many biologists, thus, would argue that “wolf” and “dog” are different species despite being able to breed, while others, of course disagree. Hence, the blurry line. Our knowledge is no less because of it, it is simply causing difficulty in categorizing and organizing.
Altho there have undoubtedly been thousands of generations of dogs, they are still able to mate with wolves and produce viable offspring: they are still the same species. No macro-evolution has occurred; we started with one species, and we still have only one species.
There is no “macro-evolution” the way you’re thinking. It is an imaginary term. It is also a prime example of moving the goal posts. I have had this conversation many times before, and every time I give an example, the goal posts get moved on me and my opponent says “but they’re still both cats”, etc. So I go higher and higher up in the animal classification system, and all the while I hear “but they’re still both…” Even providing examples of one bacteria evolving into another produces cries of “but they’re still both bacteria”, despite bacteria being all the way up to a domain, being the highest and broadest classification rank below “life”, which is really not a classification in itself.
Hence, I have to ask for a rather specific and unmovable line as to what you would call an example of “macro-evolution”, since the definition creationists give for it so often wildly varies and gets changed mid-conversation in my experience, I can’t really respond adequately until I get it absolutely defined.
The Church says to trust scientists prudently–the Church does not say to trust scientists *blindly. *So, if we see problems with what scientists are telling us, we have every right not to trust them. Even the Church has not come out and said, Yep, the scientists are right about evolution, believe them. The Church only says that it seems like a viable area of study, unlike things like abc or IVF.
True. But then you should “test all things”, which includes your own thinking. So ask yourself - these scientists, who are actually sticking to science (as opposed to postulating about the necessity of a deity to start the universe, which crosses into philosophy), go through a 4 year undergrad program, 2 years of grad school, and then another 4-6 to get their doctorate, and then spend years and decades doing experiements, teaching, going to conferences, producing and reading papers, and generally centering their lives and careers around biology and evolution - how is it that you, without any of that, understand evolution better? Does it really make any sense that hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world, spending decades studying evolution would miss something that you have discovered without any training or education, without any experimentation, and with nothing more than a computer that has access to the internet? Or is it more logical that they have studied the very objections you bring forth, and answered and refuted them decades ago, and that you simply have not seen those explanations? (I would posit because many creationist “leaders” all over the internet are adamant and tell you repeatedly that such explanations don’t exist so as to convince you not to bother to look for them)
).
