Macro-evolution & the Bible are not reconcilable

Thanks to @Double_Helix46 for a wonderful debate. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did and I hope those reading it has been able to appreciate it too. To end, I wish to slightly paraphrase the question: from "is macro-evolution and the bible reconcilable" to "is evolution still happening today? The simple answer is yes: because of the nature of evolution; it is a continual process which doesn"t have a "goal". Regardless of where you begin as the origin of life; macro-evolution is always possible, just on time-scales which are not usually accessible to humans. What this means is; instead of beginning with 4.6 billion years ago and abiogenesis, it simply was skipped forward to eukaryotic life. Whether they were created or developed via abiogenesis is not the point of debate; but whether evolution and the bible is reconcilable. Evolution and abiogenesis are not entwined: they are not dependant on each other. The gradual change from one species into another from a common ancestor has been demonstrated time and time again through the processes of speciation and ring species, and there is ample evidence to support both. However in the case of this argument the "common ancestor" is not the last universal common ancestor, but the biblical account of Genesis. That the common ancestor was not a prokaryote: but was the original created animals (or those which were put on the Ark). Evolution doesn"t have a "time-scale" to develop new species: it is varies in speed on a multitude of factors such as climate and population of the organism. To counter @Double_Helix46"s question of "How could we know that they ever will [evolve]?" It is because of the same way we know Pluto"s Orbit. Pluto's orbital period is 248 Earth years: when we haven"t even known of Pluto"s existence for that long (as it was discovered in 1930). The reason why we know its orbit (or in our case that evolution is still happening and will continue to happen) is due to the accumulation of evidence which allow us to predict what will happen. That sexual reproduction creates an organism which is different to its parents creating variation within the species. And that over time there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, thus creating a new species. What I believe @Double_Helix46 is trying to merge the evolutionary timescale upon the Biblical timescale, however that was not the debate we began with. The debate we are having is "Macro-evolution and the Bible"; not Biblical origins of life and scientific origins of life. So in posing the debate of whether large-scale evolution can happen based on a literal reading of Genesis there is evidence to support the fact that this is patently the case. This is not a debate into the origin of life; it is about whether evolution is true regardless of how the first life developed. In round 1 it was established "Macro-evolution (the gradual change from one species into another from a common ancestor)". My perspective is that even if you take a literal reading of Genesis then large-scale evolution can happen due to sexual reproduction creating variation within a population and that speciation is able to create new species. Regardless of how the first life was created evolution is a fact. The origin of life is not relevant to this discussion, it debate is whether one species can develop into another from a common ancestor. This is demonstrably true regardless of how or when the first life developed based on the nature of variety in populations due to mutations and sexual reproduction. I have never "changed my position" I have stated from the start that the Biblical account of Genesis is what I will base my argument on. I never stated that humans have evolved from "lesser forms" I have simply said that due to the nature of evolution it is a continual process which is compatible regardless of how the first life was created. In regard to Oenothera gigas: I was not describing the evolution of it: I was simply citing a case of speciation in which Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana, thus creating a new species. As for the paper regarding Drosophila evolution it is dated as coming from 1910: over 100 years ago. From the Creation website which @Double_Helix46 found this piece concluded by saying: "The survivors of 100 years of lab torture are still just fruit flies" which is simply utterly ignorant about the nature of evolution. As I have described; evolution is not that an organism gives birth to a "new species". It is over time new species develop when two groups can no longer interbreed. A more recent paper: Experimental evolution with Drosophila (Burke and Rose 2009) states that "Evolutionary biologists often use Drosophila as a model organism in experiments that test theories about the evolution of traits related to fitness." The comparison between the bible and evolution: biblical definition; animals giving birth to a creature of its kind. Evolution states that that an animal can never give birth to an offspring which is not of the same "kind" (or to use the scientific term "species"). That it isn"t that an organism gives birth to a new species (to use the clich"; dogs produce dogs) it is that over successive generations the tiny changes between parent and offspring can be sufficiently different in that they develop into a new species of two populations which cannot interbreed. Evolution will only be viable if an animal gives birth to a member of the same species: if there was evidence of this being breached this would actually be evidence against evolution; not for it. The criteria for evolution to occur are that: animals change over time and these changes develop animals in which can no longer interbreed. This is wholly compatible with the Biblical Account of Genesis because baraminology (creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds"). This is consistent with evolution in that an animal can never give birth to an offspring which is not of the same "kind" (or to use the scientific term "species"). And that over time there can be two populations which can no longer interbreed and therefore become a new species Penny, Ralph (2002). A History Of The Spanish Language (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 20-21. Genesis 1: Various Quotes The Holy Bible King James Version: 1611 Edition N.J Buttefield (2000). "Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen., n. sp.: implications for the evolution of sex, multicellularity, and the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes" Paleobiology 26 (3): 386"404 Gray, J. C; Goddard, M. R. (2012). Bonsall, Michael. ed "Gene-flow between niches facilitates local adaptation in sexual populations". Ecology Letters Hall, B. K; Hallgr"msson, B., eds. (2008). Strickberger's Evolution (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett pp. 762 Wake, D (1997) Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94 Dobzhansky T. (1958) in A Century of Darwin, ed Barnett S A (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA), pp 19"55 Dawkins, R. The Ancestor's Tale, 2004:303 Irwin DE, Irwin JH, Price TD (2001). "Ring species as bridges between microevolution and speciation" (PDF). Genetica 112-113: 223"43 The National Academies (1999). "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition". National Academy Press. Archived from the original on 7 December 2008 United Nations World Population Prospects 2006 Revision Bernal, John Desmond (1949) "The Physical Basis of Life". Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A, 1949 62 (9): 537"538 Freeman, S. and Herron, J. C (2004) Evolutionary analysis Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Ridley, M. (1993) Evolution. Boston: Blackwell