Consistent?
Well, compared to some other creationists I suppose
If one breeds cats for a thousand generations, they will still be cats, won't they? They simply will not "evolve" into cats which look like kangaroos and are genetically different from felis domesticus. It simply won't happen
If you read in a newspaper that a cat gave birth to kittens which looked like racoons, and had a different DNA structure from ordinary cats, you would assume that a hoax or fraud was being perpetrated. No one, anywhere, would conclude that we have just beheld an example of Darwinian evolution in actual fact.
genuine evolution, that is, of one species producing an offspring which was clearly of another, different species
I'd bet he doesn't know what a species actually is
Obviously, one species doesn't pop out of existence from cat to kangeroo, it is a slow and fuzzy process
New organs in living bodies must appear fully-formed at once
The example which is always given is the eye: the retina cannot simply appear at one time, the lens a million years later, and the optic nerve a million years thereafter. The entire eye, including it neural connections with the brain and, through it, with an animal's locomotive system, must all have appeared at precisely the same time
Er, no
Look at sea creatures with 'half-formed' eyes. They get along just fine
The "fittest" do not survive
He has absolutely no idea about what he is talking about
Most claimed examples of evolution at work are highly dubious. Perhaps the most familiar such example, often cited in textbooks, is of the moths in Lancashire whose colouration progressively darkened during the nineteenth century as dark-coloured moths became progressively more likely to blend in with their soot-darkened surroundings, and hence escape the notice of predators, while light-coloured moths were more likely to be seen and eaten. Even if this actually occurred (and there is apparently some doubt), this is, however, not an example of the evolution of a new species, but of certain members of the same species with favourable characteristics having a better survival rate than less favoured members of that species. The species itself has remained unchanged.
"The species itself has remained unchanged" - but it's a different colour!
"this is, however, not an example of the evolution of a new species, but of certain members of the same species with favourable characteristics having a better survival rate than less favoured members of that species" - yeah, or in other words Darwinian evolution
*********
You're right about species not being strict lines, Num. This is exactly the mistake he's making, saying that evolution is one species giving brith to another, assuming that there's no middle ground.
Evolution is blind, not directed, something that creationists have a hard time grasping sometimes. Sometimes evolution is plain dumb, doing something for quick gain that will doom the species later.
Our poorly draining sinuses, badly-positioned prostrate gland, and eyes with the nerves the wrong way round, are prime examples of 'incompetent design'
Evolution may not be perfect, bit one thing I hate is people attacking evolution who have absolutely no idea about what they're talking about. They immediately just to conclusions like "you don't see monkeys giving birth to humans" and such