How do Theistic Evolutionists Handle the Cambrian Explosion?

Generally, "mutants" don't breed "mutants". Foe instance, I have a 6'7", 300-lb. friend whose parents are normal stature. His size is not due to a medical malfunction, & his own grown children are normal stature. And I have a Siberian Husky that's purebred, but is twice the size of an "average" Husky & weighs 120 LB. His littermates are "normal"-size, as are his "parents", & the one litter of pups he's sired. Other than his size, he has all the traits, actions, & tools of any other Sibe.

If the "eohippus", the first known horse species, the size of a Collie, was around today, it could breed with a modern horse & produce young, if physically possible. Eohippus didn't "evolve"; it slowly became larger thru successive generations, as its environment became more-favorable for horses. A main difference between eo & today's horse besides size is that eo has a toe on each side of each hoof, which reached the ground. I'm guessing these toes helped eo to often outrun its would-be predators.

 

You actually just described evolution.

 

So all primate ‘species’ can interbreed and produce fertile offspring ... like the Eohippus and Modern Horse?

What he described is environmental adaptation like the grey and black moths of the famous industrial revolution study. They were both always the exact same species of moth.

 

Do you have an example of eohippus reproducing with a modern horse? I'd love to read about it.

Environmental adaptation is evolution.

Your moth example is flawed. It is the most common flaw in understanding of evolution. There is no clear dividing line in speciation. Any healthy member of a species can breed with the previous generation and subsequent generation (assuming also besides health all are in reproductive window). It is at some point in the distant past there will have been enough genetic drift that prevents reproduction.

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

 

1. Can you not even remember the post you quoted and responded to less than 24 hours ago? The example of an eohippus reproducing with a modern horse was given by another poster and YOU jumped all over it claiming THAT was evolution! Now you really want me to produce a living example of someone else’s hypothetical that forms the basis of your argument ... that’s crazy.

For the record, I can’t because I do not believe evolution has been proven beyond the raw hypothesis stage. The changing of the scientific definition of species and the fluid nature of the theory du jour only makes me less inclined to blindly “trust the experts”.

2. That is the silliest thing that I have ever heard. So when a cat grows a thicker coat of fur in the winter it has ‘evolved’ into a new species, and when it sheds its winter coat in the spring it has ‘evolved’ back into its original species ... only to repeat this evolutionary cycle year after year? Is that really what you want to claim?

There is a dramatic difference between adaptation and speciation. We have literally millions of examples of observed adaptation and absolutely ZERO examples of observed speciation (even with changes in the definition of what constitutes a species).

3. I was once taught what you claim here, but the fossil record indicates vast time spans of species stability with very rapid bursts of speciation ... rapid enough that intermediate evolutionary steps are USUALLY only speculative assumptions with no fossil record. Thus the old theory of slow change has fallen out of scientific favor. [unless, of course, science has changed its mind yet again and re-embraced slow change in the last 3 years since I was “schooled” on evolution by an atheist who wanted to talk cellular genetics.]

 

Wrong speciation has been observed. But then creationist when presented with examples move the goalposts with their meaningless "kinds". Oh err.. well that is not really a new kind so I'll magically wave away the speciation.

 

Once upon a time, a distinguishing characteristic of a “species” was the ability to mate and reproduce fertile offspring. Simple adaptations of local populations still able to breed with other local populations of the same species was called a “sub-species”. Then one day, the definition of species changed.

... so who really moved the Goal Posts?

When one “species” of Darwin Finch from one Galapagos Island breeds with a second “species” of Darwin Finch from a different Galapagos Island and the fertile offspring are able to breed ... some conclude that a new “species” has emerged and others see proof that two “sub-species” were both local adaptations of the same “species” all along.