Andrew, I would also be interested to know whether you agree with Robert that no species has ever become extinct, and how you reconcile this with evidence to the contrary, such as the passenger pigeon, or indeed the perilously small number of gorillas or giant pandas now left in the world? Is this a view widely held by other creationists? If you do agree, then can you (or Robert) explain the precise mechanism which prevents extinction? To me this seems a position which is very hard to defend, but I can see how believing in a fixed number of species would drive you towards it - otherwise you would have to concede that the number of species in the world was getting less all the time, and that would be a rather depressing thought.
Corno - I accept that you do not intend to sound patronising towards Sunwaiter, but that's how it sometimes comes across to me (even in your most recent post). At least we agree he has made a very valuable contribution to this debate, and I for one hope he comes back!
Jhnbrbr,
I appreciate you've asked Andrew to comment on the view that species are an immutable part of living nature, being the same in number today as when the first fossils were formed. Neither less nor more. And I cetainly don't want to anticipate his own reply. But you also ask if the mechanism of species survival can be explained - especially since (as you righly say) there are species today which exist only in small, even diminishing populations.
Well, here, in brief, are some thoughts on the subject. Perhaps you'd care to consider them ?
1. We have already seen evidence on this thread that those who teach evolution are confused about what they mean by species and always have been. In fact, (as we've seen from the writings of Darwin himself) the definition of what a species actually is was regarded by Darwin and his supporters as a mere 'matter of convenience' and was arbitrarily decided ! This massive and fundamental error comes from the very person who famously claimed to have found a mechanism for production of 'new' species ! We can't help noticing the circular argument of such a view. For, if defining what are species are highly subjective matters of mere opinion we can surely 'prove' whatever we like about species. (As Darwin repeatedly did from both fossils and from living nature). The equivalent of saying the number of natural elements in this world are not fixed or permanent but are decided by anyone who wants to guess at their number ! It's even worse, since there are in this world many more species than chemical elements. But, bearing in mind the stability of species shown by the Laws of Heredity, and confirmed by the modern science of genetics, it's easy to see how the teachings of evolutionists on species have been massively discredited by the unwelcome discoveries of science.
And - (may I suggest)
2.
We may define a species as a living organism which can be shown to occupy a fixed, permanent and unique place within the set (or group) of which it is a member.
Which group/set, in reality, is the Genus.
THE GENUS
From the above we can see that species are correctly defined and understood only within the context of the Genus to which they inevitably belong. And so the Genus is a dynamic and not static structure of living nature whose component parts are species themselves. Whose members are able to interact (or not) with each other in respect of breeding - but the success or failure of which unions is predetermined by the respective positions within the genus which each member species occupies and has always occupied. And therefore the Genus is the true structure within which it is at last possible to provide an accurate and entirely verifiable definition of species, which are its vital component parts.
Consider (just for the sake of illustration) a species which belongs to a genus which contains (and has always contained) only 8 members.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Now, if such a genus consists of only 8 species we would, by close examination, be able to determine which precise place within such a table any given species occupies.
How ? Well, consider this -
Let us say Species No. 1 (above) is able to cross with all the other 7 species in the genus. And that it occupies Position Number 1
precisely because of this ability.
We see too (if we extend this model) that Species No. 2 of such a genus would be able to cross with Species 4, 6, and 8.
But not with 3, 5 or 7. For, once again, the position a species occupies within the genus has in effect predetermined its ability/inability to successfully cross with other members of its genus.
Again, Species Number 3. We can predict from the above that it can successfully cross with Species No. 6. But not with those numbered 2, 4, 5, 7 or 8. (For 3 is arithmetically consonant with 6 but not with others of the above genus).
Again, Species 4. It may cross with Species 8.
But species 5 crosses with none other, except 1.
And so on.
Thus, the interactions of species with other species of the same genus. (A phenomenon known today as 'clines') may be due, may find its explanation in an orderly way, by the species occupying (and always having occupied) a fixed and permanent place according to the structure of the genus itself.
Again, the outcome of such crosses between different species of the same genus may have different outcomes depending on whether the particular species in question and that of its mate is male, or female. So that a cross between Species 1 and 7, for example, may produce a different result (hybrid or otherwise) from a cross between 7 and 1, this due to which specific species under examination is the male and which the female.
Such a system would be entirely consistent with the old idea of 'every seed bringing forth (i.e. according to - in consistency with) its own kind'. The 'kind' being, of course, the genus itself. Thus, the species is understood only by recognising the existence and the significance of its genus. A genus which is as permanent a feature of living nature as are the elements in chemistry. There can be little doubt that this ability of a given species to be able to cross with other species of its own kind is, in itself, helpful in preserving a given species from extinction.
//
