Macro-evolution & the Bible are not reconcilable

I hope to all reading that this is an explanation into the notion of evolution and will hopefully explain some of the misconceptions about evolution. We must first establish what evolution actually is: I will try an analogy. The language of Spanish originally stems from a "common ancestor" which was Latin. Each parent then gives birth to a child which speaks the same language. However each generation there are some adaptations to the language and it "evolves" into a new language (into Spanish). This can be done was by people spreading to different parts of the world the language "adapted" and was changed so much from before it was unrecognisable and so became a separate language to Latin. It's not Latin parents gave birth to a Spanish speaking child: it is that that 'evolved' from several dialects of spoken Latin to form a new language. Thus meaning it was a gradual change over many generations which developed into a new language. Now (to draw a parallel with the topic we are discussing) you can believe if you wish that that Latin (on in our debate, life) was created in 6 literal days (by "God') But the origin of the language is not what we are debating. In order for this to be incompatible; then you must not accept that languages (or in our debate: life) cannot change and that new languages (species) cannot be developed. So in the case of our debate: the only way that the biblical account would be incompatible with evolution is that sexual reproduction produced genetically identical offspring to that of its parents (that there is no variation within a species) and that no new species can ever be developed (both of which are simply wrong) and I will discuss both in depth. To understand this we must first understand sexual reproduction. So when a parent gives birth to an offspring, in sexually reproductive species (almost all plants and animals) the offspring is not genetically identical to their parents. Sexual reproduction is a process that creates a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms. The way this is done is by meiosis, involving the halving of the number of chromosomes; and fertilization, involving the fusion of two gametes and the restoration of the original number of chromosomes. During meiosis, the chromosomes of each pair cross over to achieve homologous recombination. Evolution simply means the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations (Hall, B. K. ; Hallgr"msson, B. , eds. (2008). The simplest way to explain evolution is by explaining using an example. Ensatina salamander has been described as a ring species in the mountains surrounding the Californian Central Valley. Let"s imagine an Ensatina salamander gives birth to another Ensatina salamander with slight genetic differences (due to the nature of sexual reproduction) and then over these successive generations accumulate (so they are still consistent with the biblical definition of giving birth to the same "kind"). Now the remarkable thing about the Ensatina salamander is that they are found in the Californian Central Valley: and so two populations of these are geographically separated. What this means is that as the species expanded to the south and west of the valley and progressively changed as they adapted to their surroundings (but still giving birth to its own kind) meaning that it could still interbreed with its neighbours. Now the exact same thing happened when the Ensatina salamander spread to the east of the valley: that progressively changed (but still giving birth to its own kind) meaning that it could still interbreed with its neighbours. However when they met at the southern end of the Californian Central Valley something remarkable was found: that the two groups which were separated at the north of the valley could not interbreed at the "end. " What this is a demonstration of is that of ring species: what this is, is a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" species. This is exactly what evolution predicts; that species do not form by the Ensatina salamander giving birth to a non-Ensatina salamander; but that over time the changes between two groups become too different to each other in that they can"t interbreed and therefore become a new species: which coincides with the biblical definition. The biblical definition of animals giving birth to a creature of its kind is essentially a crude definition of evolution. Thus; even Christians which believe that the "Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture for them" has not been altered: that evolution (and in this case macro-evolution) and the bible are completely compatible. What this means is that there is an element of baraminology (creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds"). This is wholly 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"). However this is also what is stated by evolution: 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. 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. Based on the nature of evolution does state that "man is really no different than any animal" and in fact humans are animals as you quite rightly pointed out: however even if we interpret the bible literally that man was made in the image of "God" then evolution is still compatible with this, as long as you accept the biological fact that sexual reproduction: the production of a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms and there is a change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations We can observe examples of rapid evolution (in the form of speciation) but this doesn"t always need to be observed in order to fit this in with a biblical reading. Because of the nature of evolution; it is a continual process which doesn"t have a "goal". So what this means is (even taking into account a biblical beginning) this means that regardless of where you begin as the origin of life; macro-evolution is always possible, just on timescales which are not usually accessible to humans (as we are finite beings which are prone to dying every now and then; and given that the average life expectancy of a human on the earth is 67.2 years according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2006 Revision,) and changes large scale changes to animals in that time is usually difficult to see: as evolution is not as such that these huge changes happen all that often). I don"t mean any disrespect by this but I can"t help but feel as though this debate may be more about the nature of abiogenesis and not evolution. What I mean by this is that the nature of macro-evolution is simply large-scale changes in populations and it is only that humans are finite being and are only able to physically observe these changes on a small scale (macro-evolution) Regardless of how the first life was created evolution is a fact. Evolution (descent with modification) has been framed as universal generalization and subsequently formulated as laws of nature. A scientific law meaning a generalized formulation of the recurring observable tendencies of nature