Incredible - a single cell

[-57]

The cat/dog wasn't a creator. It was merely one of a line of animals whose descendants included both cats and dogs. The finding of these transitional forms confirms the prediction based on DNA analysis, showing a close relationship between cats and dogs.

Retroposon-based phylogenetic tree of carnivores according to the most statistically favored data. SINEs and LINEs are presented as yellow and red balls, respectively. Divergence times in millions of years ago (MYA) were taken from Eizirik et al. (2010). Alternative relationships are presented at the bottom of the figure (Ursoidea plus Pinnipedia supported by 34 SINEs and 26 LINEs; Ursoidea plus Musteloidea supported by 40 SINEs and 34 LINEs). Zones of possible ILS are indicated as diffuse gray areas. The tree topology was derived by PAUP based on the presence/absence data. The same tree topology was obtained using the Bayesian reconstruction method. ILS, incomplete lineage sorting.

And eventually it was found. Another ornithologist realized that close DNA relationships between ducks and flamingos meant that they had a very recent common ancestor. That is also confirmed.

The fact that these predicted transitional forms are found is (as honest creationists admit) very good evidence for common descent. But what is even more convincing, is that we never see a transitional form where there shouldn't be any.

No point in denying the obvious. Try to find a way to deal with the facts that is consistent with the evidence.

What you present is kinda what the YEC would expect considering a common creator would use common "parts" to make similiar animals. No surprise here.
Secondly distant "kinds" would also have a lot of common DNA.

You can keep posting the evo-garbage but in reality you prove nothing.

 

[The Barbarian]

What you present is kinda what the YEC would expect considering a common creator would use common "parts" to make similiar animals.

No. Here, you're confusing analogous organs with homologies. For example, the "thumb" a panda uses to grasp bamboo, isn't a thumb at all, but an enlarged sesamoid bone. It appears that mutations in the DYNC2H1 and PCNT genes cause the engargement of this bone, which has muscle attachments that allow it to be moved as a true digit would be. These are analogous to true thumbs seen in primates. If each were created separately, there would be no reason to modify one part to a different purpose. But if the Creator made living things with the ability to change over time, then it makes perfect sense.

Secondly distant "kinds" would also have a lot of common DNA.

If they were created separately, there would be no reason for the Creator to make it appear as though they evolved from one another. There wouldn't be any need for them to have any DNA in common. But here everything is, with DNA that shows evolutionary paths. And we know this works, because we can test that idea on organisms of known descent.

You can keep posting the evo-garbage but in reality you prove nothing.

And now, you're reduced to calling names, not even attempting an argument.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that the Bible doesn't give a date, a time, or a specific location for the fall)
Christian theology doesn't make up a story when the Bible doesn't say. So give us the date, time, and specific location from a YE revisionist view. What do you have?

You're off road.

I'm asking you to support the claim.

The question is...why?

Because I'm sure everyone here would like see what you have to support your new doctrine. So what do you have?

The specific location is the Garden of Eden...at least that's what my bible says.

So you don't know where it was? O.K. Do you have a time or date? You were complaining that other Christians didn't know. What do you have?

But, when you're a TE..there ws no Garden of Eden.

No, that's wrong, too. Nothing in evolutionary theory rules out our descent from two original humans in a garden.

When? At the time only Adam and Eve existed...as there was no other humans.

None other with an immortal soul given directly by God. But you don't even know what the species those humans were, do you?

 

[The Barbarian]

As Woodmorappe would! He is a YEC and rejects evolution as secularists and theistic evolutionists define it.

Well once again all we have is our mystery e-mail which is not here. But we do have Woodmorappe's multiple writings and they contradict your e-mail.

Well, you don't seem to have read much by Woodmorappe...Here's a review by a creationist, who has read his work:

For the purpose of identifying the number of animals needed for the Ark, Woodmorappe equates the taxonomic unit of the genus to the 'kind', which in most cases is likely to be conservative...that is why John can offer rapid 'speciation' as a viable solution for repopulating the Earth after the bottleneck of the Flood.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_3/j10_3_329-330.pdf

As I said, he limited "kind" to families, writing "I think that's just about the limit." The big problem with Woodmorappe's idea is that with a single pair of organisms, you'd have at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. And that would mean almost certain extinction. Normally, when there's so little variation in a population, it's doomed to extinction.

Minimum viable population (MVP) is a lower bound on the population of a species, such that it can survive in the wild. This term is commonly used in the fields of biology, ecology, and conservation biology. MVP refers to the smallest possible size at which a biological population can exist without facing extinction from natural disasters or demographic, environmental, or genetic stochasticity.[1] The term "population" is defined as a group of interbreeding individuals in similar geographic area that undergo negligible gene flow with other groups of the species[2]. Typically, MVP is used to refer to a wild population, but can also be used for ex-situ conservation (Zoo populations).
Minimum viable population - Wikipedia

It would be slightly better for the clean animals, with seven pairs, but not much:

An MVP of 500 to 1,000 has often been given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored.[7][8] When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported concerning vertebrates "a cross-species frequency distribution of MVP with a median of 4169 individuals (95% CI = 3577–5129)."[9]
ibid

 

[nolidad]

Minimum viable population (MVP) is a lower bound on the population of a species, such that it can survive in the wild. This term is commonly used in the fields of biology, ecology, and conservation biology. MVP refers to the smallest possible size at which a biological population can exist without facing extinction from natural disasters or demographic, environmental, or genetic stochasticity.[1] The term "population" is defined as a group of interbreeding individuals in similar geographic area that undergo negligible gene flow with other groups of the species[2]. Typically, MVP is used to refer to a wild population, but can also be used for ex-situ conservation (Zoo populations).
Minimum viable population - Wikipedia

Well now we know the MVP---Two!

Well, you don't seem to have read much by Woodmorappe...Here's a review by a creationist, who has read his work:

For the purpose of identifying the number of animals needed for the Ark, Woodmorappe equates the taxonomic unit of the genus to the 'kind', which in most cases is likely to be conservative...that is why John can offer rapid 'speciation' as a viable solution for repopulating the Earth after the bottleneck of the Flood.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_3/j10_3_329-330.pdf

As I said, he limited "kind" to families, writing "I think that's just about the limit." The big problem with Woodmorappe's idea is that with a single pair of organisms, you'd have at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. And that would mean almost certain extinction. Normally, when there's so little variation in a population, it's doomed to extinction.

And once again yo display willing ignorance or intentional deception in your partial quote- woodmorappe was using genus in a portion defneding that all animals alive (by twos except clean) could fit ont eh ark.

He was simply using genus as a marker fo size and population purposes for loading the ark- not a statement as a definitive taxon that went on the ark! Don't you tire of misquoting creationists?

As I said, he limited "kind" to families, writing "I think that's just about the limit." The big problem with Woodmorappe's idea is that with a single pair of organisms, you'd have at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. And that would mean almost certain extinction. Normally, when there's so little variation in a population, it's doomed to extinction.

Well if you only rely on the word of men and reject that God can do differently - you will always hold to a very crippled god!

 

[The Barbarian]

Well now we know the MVP---Two!

No, that's wrong. Once a population falls below a particular number, it's usually doomed. There are exceptions, particularly when humans step in and keep the animals in captivity. There, a lack of genetic variation isn't quite as deadly.

For the purpose of identifying the number of animals needed for the Ark, Woodmorappe equates the taxonomic unit of the genus to the 'kind', which in most cases is likely to be conservative...that is why John can offer rapid 'speciation' as a viable solution for repopulating the Earth after the bottleneck of the Flood.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_3/j10_3_329-330.pdf

As I said, he limited "kind" to families, writing "I think that's just about the limit." The big problem with Woodmorappe's idea is that with a single pair of organisms, you'd have at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. And that would mean almost certain extinction. Normally, when there's so little variation in a population, it's doomed to extinction.

And once again yo display willing ignorance or intentional deception in your partial quote- woodmorappe was using genus in a portion defneding that all animals alive (by twos except clean) could fit ont eh ark.

No. He was assuming the smallest taxon that could encompass the undefined creationist term, "kind." He thought it generally referred to genus, but told me that it would in some cases mean "family", remarking that family was "just about" the limit of "kind."

He was simply using genus as a marker fo size and population purposes for loading the ark- not a statement as a definitive taxon that went on the ark! Don't you tire of misquoting creationists?

You just didn't read it very carefully. Try it again, and think.

As I said, he limited "kind" to families, writing "I think that's just about the limit." The big problem with Woodmorappe's idea is that with a single pair of organisms, you'd have at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. And that would mean almost certain extinction. Normally, when there's so little variation in a population, it's doomed to extinction.

Well if you only rely on the word of men

That's what you do, when you accept YE creationism. It's the doctrine of some men, not God's word.

and reject that God can do differently

If you need to insert non-scriptural miracles to save your story, that's a pretty good clue in itself, isn't it?

Because you don't think God is powerful enough to create living things using nature, you will always hold to a very crippled god.

 

[dad]

The cat/dog wasn't a creator. It was merely one of a line of animals whose descendants included both cats and dogs. The finding of these transitional forms confirms the prediction based on DNA analysis, showing a close relationship between cats and dogs.

Retroposon-based phylogenetic tree of carnivores according to the most statistically favored data. SINEs and LINEs are presented as yellow and red balls, respectively. Divergence times in millions of years ago (MYA) were taken from Eizirik et al. (2010). Alternative relationships are presented at the bottom of the figure (Ursoidea plus Pinnipedia supported by 34 SINEs and 26 LINEs; Ursoidea plus Musteloidea supported by 40 SINEs and 34 LINEs). Zones of possible ILS are indicated as diffuse gray areas. The tree topology was derived by PAUP based on the presence/absence data. The same tree topology was obtained using the Bayesian reconstruction method. ILS, incomplete lineage sorting.

And eventually it was found. Another ornithologist realized that close DNA relationships between ducks and flamingos meant that they had a very recent common ancestor. That is also confirmed.

The fact that these predicted transitional forms are found is (as honest creationists admit) very good evidence for common descent. But what is even more convincing, is that we never see a transitional form where there shouldn't be any.

No point in denying the obvious. Try to find a way to deal with the facts that is consistent with the evidence.

You know that 63 million years ago there were DNA changes....how exactly? Ha.

 

[The Barbarian]

You know that 63 million years ago there were DNA changes....

There have always been DNA changes. Every organism has them.

how exactly?

DNA has a built-in error rate. It also has error correction, but not a perfect one. Hence God created the world so that organisms would have the means to vary over time. This was all that is needed for common descent.

 

[-57]

As I said, he limited "kind" to families, writing "I think that's just about the limit." The big problem with Woodmorappe's idea is that with a single pair of organisms, you'd have at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. And that would mean almost certain extinction. Normally, when there's so little variation in a population, it's doomed to extinction.

Heterozygous individuals have two different alleles for a particular trait.... homozygous individuals have the same alleles for a particular trait.

Apparently you've limited the speciating post flood animals to be only homozygous individuals. Pre-flood animals would have had a higher heterozygous percentage of variation...which would mean no extinction.

 

[-57]

DNA has a built-in error rate. It also has error correction, but not a perfect one. Hence God created the world so that organisms would have the means to vary over time. This was all that is needed for common descent.

Your evolution problem...common descent...is revealed when you need "multiple" so-called beneficial mutations to occur in an organism's progenies DNA that codes for a particular trait.

For your model to work God would have had to tweek each evolving trend by causing the mutation to occur in just the right place at just the right time to enhance the benefit of the organism....as we all know the genetic DNA code is so enourmous and the amount of so-called beneficial mutations is extremely small. A method involving randomness would not be able to produce this common descent you're speaking of.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As I said, he limited "kind" to families, writing "I think that's just about the limit." The big problem with Woodmorappe's idea is that with a single pair of organisms, you'd have at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. And that would mean almost certain extinction. Normally, when there's so little variation in a population, it's doomed to extinction.

Heterozygous individuals have two different alleles for a particular trait.... homozygous individuals have the same alleles for a particular trait.

That's what I told you.

Apparently you've limited the speciating post flood animals to be only homozygous individuals.

No, you still don't get it. If each of them were heterozygous, with alleles the other individual didn't have, then they would have 4 different alleles. If they were both homozygous, they could have no more than two different alleles. Do you understand why?

Pre-flood animals would have had a higher heterozygous percentage of variation...

That's an assumption which is neither scriptural nor supported by science. But even if each of them had all different alleles, 4 alleles won't cut it. That's why below a certain number of individuals, a population will usually go extinct.

The maximum would be this:

Individual 1: allele A1 and Allele A2 Individual 2: allele A3 and Allele A4.

That's all there is. This applies to Adam and Eve as well. They would have had no more than 4 alleles between the two of them, for each gene locus. The rest evolved by mutation and natural selection.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your evolution problem...common descent...is revealed when you need "multiple" so-called beneficial mutations to occur in an organism's progenies DNA that codes for a particular trait.

Like the clotting cascade that needs several mutation to get to the form we have. However, there are a good number of different factors for clotting, and all of them work more or less well. We just have a relatively good form of the genes. And some primitive animals don't even have the clotting cascade; other kinds of bleeding control existed before the complement cascade. This is quite normal; many features, like sexual reproduction were first optional, and later on, in some organisms became necessary.
You've been badly misled about this. Would you like me to show you some more examples?

For your model to work God would have had to tweek each evolving trend by causing the mutation to occur in just the right place at just the right time to enhance the benefit of the organism....as we all know the genetic DNA code is so enourmous and the amount of so-called beneficial mutations is extremely small.

See above. It's not the way they told you it is. Would you like to see an observed case of this?

A method involving randomness would not be able to produce this common descent you're speaking of.

However, method including random mutation and natural selection has been shown to do exactly that. Want to see?

 

[-57]

Barbarian observes:
As I said, he limited "kind" to families, writing "I think that's just about the limit." The big problem with Woodmorappe's idea is that with a single pair of organisms, you'd have at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. And that would mean almost certain extinction. Normally, when there's so little variation in a population, it's doomed to extinction.



That's what I told you.



No, you still don't get it. If each of them were heterozygous, with alleles the other individual didn't have, then they would have 4 different alleles. If they were both homozygous, they could have no more than two different alleles. Do you understand why?



That's an assumption which is neither scriptural nor supported by science. But even if each of them had all different alleles, 4 alleles won't cut it. That's why below a certain number of individuals, a population will usually go extinct.

The maximum would be this:

Individual 1: allele A1 and Allele A2 Individual 2: allele A3 and Allele A4.

That's all there is. This applies to Adam and Eve as well. They would have had no more than 4 alleles between the two of them, for each gene locus. The rest evolved by mutation and natural selection.

The heterozygous individual would have double. Much more variation.

 

[-57]

Like the clotting cascade that needs several mutation to get to the form we have. However, there are a good number of different factors for clotting, and all of them work more or less well. We just have a relatively good form of the genes. And some primitive animals don't even have the clotting cascade; other kinds of bleeding control existed before the complement cascade. This is quite normal; many features, like sexual reproduction were first optional, and later on, in some organisms became necessary.
You've been badly misled about this. Would you like me to show you some more examples?



See above. It's not the way they told you it is. Would you like to see an observed case of this?



However, method including random mutation and natural selection has been shown to do exactly that. Want to see?

The scale in which you claim you can present is extremely small...and almost always relies on bacteria.

I'm talking about evolving traits, several traits that make up systems such as the dolphins echo-location system.

 

[nolidad]

No, that's wrong. Once a population falls below a particular number, it's usually doomed. There are exceptions, particularly when humans step in and keep the animals in captivity. There, a lack of genetic variation isn't quite as deadly.

For the purpose of identifying the number of animals needed for the Ark, Woodmorappe equates the taxonomic unit of the genus to the 'kind', which in most cases is likely to be conservative...that is why John can offer rapid 'speciation' as a viable solution for repopulating the Earth after the bottleneck of the Flood.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_3/j10_3_329-330.pdf

As I said, he limited "kind" to families, writing "I think that's just about the limit." The big problem with Woodmorappe's idea is that with a single pair of organisms, you'd have at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. And that would mean almost certain extinction. Normally, when there's so little variation in a population, it's doomed to extinction.

Well to the natural man you may be right about a population falling to two:
Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things arepossible.

And maybe today you 'd have at most 4 alleles, but you cannot be certain that has always been true.

No. He was assuming the smallest taxon that could encompass the undefined creationist term, "kind." He thought it generally referred to genus, but told me that it would in some cases mean "family", remarking that family was "just about" the limit of "kind."

He has made that known many times publicly!

That's what you do, when you accept YE creationism. It's the doctrine of some men, not God's word.

Show me where God said He evolved everything in His Word! That is the Word of men!

But teh Word of God says this: Genesis 1`:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

See the key Words- AND GOD SAID...AND IT WAS SO! in one day not eons of time!

If you need to insert non-scriptural miracles to save your story, that's a pretty good clue in itself, isn't it?

Because you don't think God is powerful enough to create living things using nature, you will always hold to a very crippled god.

Well if the bible said He just jump started it and then let nature takes its course- I would believe. But Gods Word doesn't- mans does.
Sorry your God relies on hundreds of millions of years of death destruction, disease, predation, extinctions, murder, climate chaos, asteroid strikes, to get creation up to snuff. that sounds like a pathetically weak God to me! Certainly a lot crueler than the god the Bible declares without having to monkey (all pun intended) with what the clear simple plain language of Scripture says.

BTW It doesn't take a powerful God to start a process and then walk away from it and let nature take its course. That fits the definition of an apathetic lazy deity.

 

[dad]

There have always been DNA changes. Every organism has them.

Great...so we know there was that particular change 63 million years ago...because..?

Secondly, we know animals had DNA exactly like that we see today, because...?

(or are you just here to make proclamations like 'there have always been...'?)

DNA has a built-in error rate. It also has error correction, but not a perfect one.

Ah, so you look at today and impose this on the world and nature of a million yesterdays ago. Sorry, that is not good science. Hint: there needs to be valid demonstrable reasons for big claims.

Hence God created the world so that organisms would have the means to vary over time.

We interrupt the proclamations for a little theology here I see. 'The reason God created is because...aiding and abetting and facilitating evo dreams'. Ok.

This was all that is needed for common descent.

All you thought was needed was a proclamation and theology?!

 

[The Barbarian]

Great...so we know there was that particular change 63 million years ago...because..?

Because that's how DNA works.

Secondly, we know animals had DNA exactly like that we see today, because...?

Actually, there were probably genes that were quite different, but DNA itself has changed remarkably little. There are some very inconsequential changes in DNA among kingdoms, showing that it's been very conserved for a very, very long time. We see that in fundamental proteins like cytochrome C as well.

Barbarian observes:
DNA has a built-in error rate. It also has error correction, but not a perfect one.

Ah, so you look at today and impose this on the world and nature of a million yesterdays ago.

If it wasn't pretty much like it is today, nothing would have worked.

Sorry, that is not good science.

It's very good science. And we see ancient DNA works exactly like today's DNA.

Hint: there needs to be valid demonstrable reasons for big claims.

Reality beats anyone's "well, maybe things were different, then."

We interrupt the proclamations for a little theology here I see. 'The reason God created is because...aiding and abetting and facilitating evo dreams'.

Instead of suggesting God is trying to make things hard for you, why not just accept the evidence as it is? Your new doctrines won't work with reality as it is, and you want God to have done it differently in the past. But there's no evidence whatever for it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well to the natural man you may be right about a population falling to two:
Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things arepossible.

If you have to call in a non-scriptural miracle to patch up errors in your beliefs, isn't that a pretty good clue for you?

And maybe today you 'd have at most 4 alleles, but you cannot be certain that has always been true.

It's true for all diploid organisms. Mammals are diploid. So no way out of that for you.

Barbarian observes:
No. He was assuming the smallest taxon that could encompass the undefined creationist term, "kind." He thought it generally referred to genus, but told me that it would in some cases mean "family", remarking that family was "just about" the limit of "kind."

He has made that known many times publicly!

Here's the rub. That would put humans and all apes in the same "kind."

Barbarian observes:
That's what you do, when you accept YE creationism. It's the doctrine of some men, not God's word.

Show me where God said He evolved everything in His Word!

He didn't say either way. That's why YE creationism is a man-made doctrine.

If you need to insert non-scriptural miracles to save your story, that's a pretty good clue in itself, isn't it?

Because you don't think God is powerful enough to create living things using nature, you will always hold to a very crippled god.

Well if the bible said He just jump started it and then let nature takes its course

You're confusing Christianity with deism here. No wonder you won't accept it God's way. You don't know what He's telling you.

Sorry your God relies on hundreds of millions of years of death destruction, disease, predation, extinctions, murder, climate chaos, asteroid strikes, to get creation up to snuff.

So the Bible says. God's ways are not always the way we would do it.

that sounds like a pathetically weak God to me!

I can only believe that He's doing things in the best possible way. If each of us could make it as we think is right, it would be different. Let God be God and do it His way.

And look up "deism" and see why your faith in it is misplaced.

 

[dad]

Because that's how DNA works.

How trees grow, how DNA now works, how long people live, how fast adapting occurs etc...are relevant to now. You assume it was all the same in the former nature....but no reasons are offered.

Actually, there were probably genes that were quite different, but DNA itself has changed remarkably little. There are some very inconsequential changes in DNA among kingdoms, showing that it's been very conserved for a very, very long time. We see that in fundamental proteins like cytochrome C as well.

Please show us any of these in Noah or Methuselah, or Shem...etc? You look at men now and try to make a path to the past.

If it wasn't pretty much like it is today, nothing would have worked.

? Based on what do you make that claim? How did Noah live 950 years? It does not work like that today. So why would we use today to map how his world or body was??

It's very good science. And we see ancient DNA works exactly like today's DNA.

Show us DNA pre 70 million years then that is in good shape.

Here is one of the oldest genomes sequenced..

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.u...st-genome-sequenced-700000-year-old-horse-dna

or this

"The oldest DNA samples ever recovered are from insects and plants in ice cores in Greenland up to 800,000 years old."

'Jurassic Park' May Be Impossible, But Dino DNA Lasts Longer Than Thought

So you have none from pref flood man. Nor have you any from animals of the time.

A weevil was found in amber apparently with some DNA from before the time the KT layer was put down.

Ancient weevil yields oldest DNA specimen: Insect preserved in amber

Here is another example of ticks in amber

"
One of the ticks is described as a new species, Deinocroton draculi. It was massively engorged with blood when it died. Sadly for Jurassic Parkenthusiasts, the chances of extracting viable dinosaur DNA are almost non-existent. The tick was preserved near the surface of the amber and was not completely enveloped by tree resin, so it is not complete. (See the dramatic impacts of illegal amber mining in Ukraine.)

The researchers looked for the chemical signatures of iron in any preserved traces of blood that may have remained, but they did not succeed, as iron is also common in mineral contaminants in these fossils.

DNA is an extremely fragile molecule and is very unlikely to persist in such ancient fossils, says Pérez-de la Fuente. He adds that the conditions of fossilization in amber, such as extreme dehydration and great changes in temperature, are awful for the preservation of DNA.
"

Ticks That Fed on Dinosaurs Found Trapped in Amber

So I ask you, where is any DNA that tells us anything much at all from the pre KT era?

....you want God to have done it differently in the past. But there's no evidence whatever for it.

Actually it is what I read in the bible about the future and past that suggests a great difference exists. So either prove it was the same or you are welcome to believe whatever you like.

 

[nolidad]

If you have to call in a non-scriptural miracle to patch up errors in your beliefs, isn't that a pretty good clue for you?

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Imagine that! all these from the bible! So sorry you can't read these in the bible.

No. He was assuming the smallest taxon that could encompass the undefined creationist term, "kind." He thought it generally referred to genus, but told me that it would in some cases mean "family", remarking that family was "just about" the limit of "kind."

Well if He really did talk to you- this part is correct of what He has said and written and recorded for posterity!

It's true for all diploid organisms. Mammals are diploid. So no way out of that for you.

Now show me your research that it was the same for the animals God HImself brought to the Ark 4,400 years ago and I will agree with you!

You're confusing Christianity with deism here. No wonder you won't accept it God's way. You don't know what He's telling you.

No I am not- not even a poor dodge! I do accept it gods Way- it is you that has some kind of diconnet with the God of the Bible and How He said He created things.

You really should polish up your reading skills, because your esponse is not even close to what I wrote and the intent of the statement. do you know what the conditional IF means????

Here's the rub. That would put humans and all apes in the same "kind."

According ot man made taxons- but not to Almighty God!

Because you don't think God is powerful enough to create living things using nature, you will always hold to a very crippled god.

If He said He did, I would, But He didn't so your benighted remark is moot and irrelevant. Tis you who holds more to a clock work god than I do. You make Him weak by using predation, genetic mistakes, extinction, murder, mayhem, chaos and all sorts of other bad things to come to something He would call very good! But as you reject all the creative acts of God in His word , I would not be surprised if you think His creation is not very good either.