Why the theistic evolution position is both unbiblical and impossible

[SkyWriting]

Why? Because of the laws God imposed upon nature: those organisms that are not of the same kind will not successfully reproduce offspring.
The truth is that if evolution were a fact of nature then it should be just as easy to cross humans and chimps as it is to cross lions & tigers, or horses and donkeys. But alas, they cannot.

I don't deny the difficulty of changing DNA. God wrote some serious rules and procedures just to fix such problems.
Human DNA Repair Genes
But if you know the exact boundaries, I'd like to know what they are.
Please list the "Kinds" and we can verify your claim once and for all.
I appreciate Ken Ham more than most do. I have his signature in my Bible.
But his preaching is not teaching.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

I don't deny the difficulty of changing DNA. God wrote some serious rules and procedures just to fix such problems.
Human DNA Repair Genes
But if you know the exact boundaries, I'd like to know what they are.
Please list the "Kinds" and we can verify your claim once and for all.
I appreciate Ken Ham more than most do. I have his signature in my Bible.
But his preaching is not teaching.

Those boundaries are already determined by the observation of limitations in genetic crossing of various living organisms. I gave the readers a good idea about it above. But here is more:

Then this:

I don't know why you mentioned Ken Ham. None of this came from AIG as far as I know.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Darwin was wrong about a number of things. But we can observe changes in populations. So he was right about that.

Darwin showed that natural selection changed populations. So he was right about that.

"After their own kind" means that children take on the characteristics of their parents. So that's the front half of evolution right there. Some are not as well fit for their environment. I've watched that happen in 2 hours with baby ducks. That's the second half.

So you'll have to be specific on where he was wrong. If you say one kind won't evolve into another, then I'll have to ask you to define the crossover point, so we both can check the data.

There is no 'crossover point' because organisms do not cross over into other types of organisms. Yet there is a great variety in the DNA gene pool of each organism. That change giving us those varieties is biblical and not Darwinian.

All natural selection does is bring forth the traits of each family in different environments...killing off those organisms that are not fit for the various environments and climate of the world.

Best wishes.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

It's a simple as this, dear friend:

Geneticists can produce this:

...and this:



But they will never successfully manipulate genes to do this:

or this:

or this:

Why? Because of the laws God imposed upon nature: those organisms that are not of the same kind will not successfully reproduce offspring.

AND...when scientists do attempt to cross those barriers they get results like this:

...or this:

The truth is that if evolution were a fact of nature then it should be just as easy to cross humans and chimps as it is to cross lions & tigers, or horses and donkeys. But alas, they cannot.

What an emarrassment.

Kirkwhisper please do us a fvaour: don't go down to the Creation & Evolution section down in the Society Section. There are already plenty of atheists who regard Christians as being intellectually backwards and you'd only be making it worse.

 

[Assyrian]

Why would life evolve into mice?

Given the billions of mice there are in the world, it seems a pretty successful strategy. Marsupial mice seem to think so too.

No thoughts on God giving the material world that ability to produce the first life?

 

[Assyrian]

Those boundaries are already determined by the observation of limitations in genetic crossing of various living organisms. I gave the readers a good idea about it above. But here is more:

So when two populations can no longer interbreed, they become new kinds?

 

[sfs]

Not in the code of the organism, but isn't a major source of variation in microevolution the differing codes of the entire population, with adaptation being a change in their frequency in the population?

(I'm getting a little nervous talking about the "code" of the organism, since "genetic code" means something specific, and it's something that very rarely changes.) Yes, genetic variation is always present in (almost) every natural population, and often a whole lot of variation. Selection can act on existing variation (usually called "selection on standing variation") or on new variants that appear as mutations. Ultimately, all of the variants arose as mutations in some ancestor or other, of course. Sometimes they'll just drift around in frequency in the population because they're selectively neutral or mildly deleterious, and then a change to the environment will make them beneficial and they'll take off for higher frequency.

 

[Greg1234]

Where is the definition of created kinds?

The kind is the divine principle from which form extends. In the Hermetic tradition t starts from the "Gods" "And every God, by his internal power, did that which was commanded him; and there were made four-footed things, and creeping things, and such as live in the water, and such as fly, and every fruitful seed, and Grass, and the Flowers of all Greens, all which had sowed in themselves the Seeds of Regeneration." The Root in Gnosticism "Will matter then be destroyed or not?

22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.

23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone." The arbiter of flesh in the NT "39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another." The superiors in the Kabbalah, kinds in Genesis and the monads of Plato.

 

[Greg1234]

Since you have been repeatedly not bothering to define "kind" in taxonomy

What's needed in taxonomy is the limit of the adaptive mechanism. Without the def. of kind it's still revealed.

 

[Assyrian]

The kind is the divine principle from which form extends. In the Hermetic tradition t starts from the "Gods" "And every God, by his internal power, did that which was commanded him; and there were made four-footed things, and creeping things, and such as live in the water, and such as fly, and every fruitful seed, and Grass, and the Flowers of all Greens, all which had sowed in themselves the Seeds of Regeneration." The Root in Gnosticism "Will matter then be destroyed or not?

22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.

23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone." The arbiter of flesh in the NT "39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another." The superiors in the Kabbalah, kinds in Genesis and the monads of Plato.

So the Creationists concept of kinds doesn't come from Genesis, it comes from Plato and Greek philosophy?

 

[Assyrian]

(I'm getting a little nervous talking about the "code" of the organism, since "genetic code" means something specific, and it's something that very rarely changes.) Yes, genetic variation is always present in (almost) every natural population, and often a whole lot of variation. Selection can act on existing variation (usually called "selection on standing variation") or on new variants that appear as mutations. Ultimately, all of the variants arose as mutations in some ancestor or other, of course. Sometimes they'll just drift around in frequency in the population because they're selectively neutral or mildly deleterious, and then a change to the environment will make them beneficial and they'll take off for higher frequency.

So the genetic code is more the underlying rules what amino acids come from the different combinations of three nucleotides, rather than the individual genetic sequences?

 

[sfs]

So the genetic code is more the underlying rules what amino acids come from the different combinations of three nucleotides, rather than the individual genetic sequences?

Correct.

 

[SkyWriting]

Given the billions of mice there are in the world, it seems a pretty successful strategy. Marsupial mice seem to think so too.
No thoughts on God giving the material world that ability to produce the first life?

Your explaining why mice don't die off.
That's not what I asked.
My question is - why did mice need to develop in the first place?

Alge works just fine. Slime molds can travel as well. Why go any farther?

 

[SkyWriting]

What an emarrassment.

Kirkwhisper please do us a fvaour: don't go down to the Creation & Evolution section down in the Society Section. There are already plenty of atheists who regard Christians as being intellectually backwards and you'd only be making it worse.

Advice on Vanity, Ego, and Spelling from someone proud to call them self strange.

 

[sfs]

Your explaining why mice don't die off.
That's not what I asked.
My question is - why did mice need to develop in the first place?

Alge works just fine. Slime molds can travel as well. Why go any farther?

They didn't need to. They evolved because they could -- no other reason required. If staying algal and becoming more mouse-like are both successful ways of being a living organism, and if some of the algae happen to become more mouse-like, then both groups are likely to flourish.

 

[SkyWriting]

Those boundaries are already determined by the observation of limitations in genetic crossing of various living organisms. I gave the readers a good idea about it above. But here is more:

Thanks. I get the idea. The problem is that your sources, who ever they are, are using the same types of diagrams and same method of classifying as your opposition. If you base it on appearances, you may be wrong.

Monarch butterfly on the left, viceroy butterfly on the right.

Drone Fly (Eristalis tenax), Pitt County Arboretum, Greenville, NC, 11/11/10, a relatively large flower fly that looks very much like a honey bee, but does not have a stinger.
European Honeybee (Apis mellifera, subfamily Apinae, family Apidae), Raulston Arboretum, Raleigh, Wake County, NC, 3/17/06. This definitely has a stinger.



My point is that "human observation" just doesn't cut it. You can't make up a rule that says that "kinds don't change"
if your verification of the rule is based on human observations. The "Kinds" rule is not a biblical fact.

The idea of "Natural Selection" in that All misfits must die for the betterment of the group seems
to me a better argument. Easy to dispute with scripture. The "Kinds" argument is weak and species centric.
Kind of racist.

 

[Keachian]

Your explaining why mice don't die off.
That's not what I asked.
My question is - why did mice need to develop in the first place?

well considering that we have convergent evolution seen through Mice of rodentia and antechinus of marsupial the reason you are dismissing is also the reason that they develop, they fill a definitive niche. Also nothing "needs" to develop, just as nothing "needs" to have sex. Development just happens through accumulated mutations. Beneficial ones helping them survive to propagate more. Non-beneficial ones causing them to be eliminated before they propagate much. Neutral ones neither helping nor hindering.

Alge works just fine. Slime molds can travel as well. Why go any farther?

Because God wanted to?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Advice on Vanity, Ego, and Spelling from someone proud to call them self strange.

Nothing wrong with being slightly strange. But thinking this is an example of evolution:

That's not strange. That's, well, stupid.

And yes teh spelin could be bette.

My question is - why did mice need to develop in the first place?

Alge works just fine. Slime molds can travel as well. Why go any farther?

We could also argue that there was no need for mice to be specially created either. Indeed we could ask why God created so many animals He knew would go extinct. You don't see many cynodonts nowadays.

But that's not the topic of this thread.

The problem is that your sources, who ever they are, are using the same types of diagrams and same method of classifying as your opposition. If you base it on appearances, you may be wrong.

Monarch butterfly on the left, viceroy butterfly on the right.

So if animals cannot be classified as being the same species (or "kind") by appearance alone - how do we determine if they're related?

 

[SkyWriting]

(I'm getting a little nervous talking about the "code" of the organism, since "genetic code" means something specific, and it's something that very rarely changes.) Yes, genetic variation is always present in (almost) every natural population, and often a whole lot of variation. Selection can act on existing variation (usually called "selection on standing variation") or on new variants that appear as mutations. Ultimately, all of the variants arose as mutations in some ancestor or other, of course. Sometimes they'll just drift around in frequency in the population because they're selectively neutral or mildly deleterious, and then a change to the environment will make them beneficial and they'll take off for higher frequency.

You fail to distinguish between mutations caused by mechanical error and those variations allowed by design. Yet you acknowledge they both exist.
"Ultimately, all of the variants arose as mutations in some ancestor" is misleading. Great variation is allowed by design. Accidental mutations are corrected and eliminated as quick as possible.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

You fail to distinguish between mutations caused by mechanical error and those variations allowed by design. Yet you acknowledge they both exist.
"Ultimately, all of the variants arose as mutations in some ancestor" is misleading. Great variation is allowed by design. Accidental mutations are corrected and eliminated as quick as possible.

Wouldn't that suggest either:

a) God constantly makes mistakes or
b) God deliberatly gives organisms detrimental genes?