Re: =Questions for evolutionists=

On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 05:04:35 -0700, Samuel Spade <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> ==Questions for Evolutionists==
>> 
>> Why is there a "genetic wall" (sterility) between the different
>> 'families' of lifeforms; dogs cannot produce offspring from cats,
>> horses from ducks, ants from grasshoppers, ect, ect, ect.?
>> 
>> If no super intelligence was behind the formations of these different
>> kinds of lifeforms, but only random chance, would not a person
>> logically expect that most of these would be able to hybridize? (just
>> like one would expect a supposedly close lower form and a higher form
>> to hybridize; for ex. ape and human.)
>> 
>> But they can't under NATURAL conditions. Only varieties within the
>> various kinds can reproduce.  (like house cats with lions, etc) 
>> Why not try a reasonable approach that fits in with the true
>> scientific knowledge of today?
>
>You don't say why you'd expect common descent to
>produce clades that can interbreed.  Natural evolution
>is based on what works, whatever the pathway there.

Since evolution has no brain, how does it know "what works".

Also, genetic mutations most of the time are negative. Yet we are told
that evolution kept refining things utill they worked. 
How did evolution create a virus or bacteria, and a whale. The both
allegedly started from the same thing. A soup of varying molecules.

>It's messy, not a tidy, organized, consistent process
>like a human-like genetic designer might approach it.

Then where is all the intermediants it would have taken?
There should be billions of intermediants out there that didn't work.
Even the father of evolution found that to be a problem. He said,

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious
and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (The
Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin)

>
>On the other hand you might also expect an aware
>designer to occasionally start new "kinds" fresh from
>the ground up.  This is also not found in nature,
>every new clade is genetically derivative of something
>that came before it.

Yes, the virus and the whale. That idea works against common sense. 

>
>Different species generally use different parts of the
>genome for a given function.  A certain chromasome
>location on one species doesn't necessarily serve the
>same function as it would in another species.  In fact
>closely related species don't generally even have the
>same number of chromasomes.  Chimpanzees, for example,
>have 24 pairs of chromasomes, while humans have 23.
>Obviously they can't interbreed.  OTOH, humans and
>neanderthals did.

Here is the mother load. Evolution allegedly created the modern human
brain. One scientist called it the most 'complex thing in the
universe'. How could a brainless force come up with that that brain?

Also, since evolution is brainless, how did it know that eyes were
needed by most life forms. It had no idea that sight was possible.
Electromagnetic waves of variouis frequencies had to be decoded in a
brain in order to 'see.' How about hearing. How did it know there was
sound waves, and then developed ears to decode the sound waves? Makes
no sense to me.
 
>
>
>> 
>> God's word, the Bible,
>
>is not a biology textbook.

It is a religious book, that does branch off into scientific things
occassionally.

For example what the Bible says about the cosmos. Around 2000 years
before the time of Columbus, and when there were all kinds of
mythological descriptions concerning the earth, such as the ancient
Hindu writings of the Ramayana which says that it rested on the back
of a giant turtle supported by 8 elephants etc, a Hebrew prophet wrote
in Isaiah 40:22, 

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..." (NIV) 

The Hebrew word used here for "circle" is "hhug" which according to
some Hebrew scholars also has the meaning of "sphere". (for example
see: "A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures by B.
Davidson") 

Also, out of the Book of Job comes the statement at Job 26:7, 

"He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon
nothing." (RSV) 

So the Bible in its poetic style, describes the earth as a circular
sphere 'hanging' upon "nothing" (floating) in a "void" (space). Since
orbital flight was not around back then, how could they have known
such things?

>
>>  says that each life form was created according
>> to its "kind". (Ge 1:25) Thus, dogs started out as dogs as remain as
>> dogs. Horses as horses, ect. There can be a lot of variety within a
>> "kind". There are many different types of cats, dogs, ect. and they
>> can all interbreed, but only within their own kind.
>> 
>> Doesn't that pattern at least show some intelligence?

For example, a tiger and a lion can interbreed, because they are
within their "Kind". They are called "ligers" and "tigons".
But since a lion and a housecat CANNOT interbreed, the Bible has its
own versions of what a "kind" is.


>
>No.  If lions could interbreed with house cats, why
>would that compromise the success of either species?

Since evolution is a psudo-science, It allegedly put 
walls' up to keep a species going. Why would brainless evolution care
if new species formed? It doesn't care one way or the other. Yet it
put up those 'walls' on various lifeforms.

 
>
>(They can't, but it would be funny to see them try.
>Lions and tigers can interbreed, though, but their
>offspring are sterile.)

That was super intelligence to keep those species separate, not blind
chance.


>
>> 
>> Since God put barriers between different families, it keeps the
>> different families or "kinds" as unique and thus won't crossbreed out
>> of existense. He did it so we can continue to enjoy or use them as
>> they originally are. (cats as cats, dogs as dogs, etc)
>> 
>> Isn't this approach at least, plausible, and worthy of more scientific
>> study?
>
>What exactly is it that you think should be studied

The biological make up of those species. (including genetics)


>further?  We already know that significantly divergent
>species can't interbreed, and we know what prevents
>it.

Isn't a blind, deaf, and dumb force just amazing!


>
>God's intent is a matter of religion, not science.

Actually, since God created all the natural sciences, the Bible is in
harmony with true science. 

A look ahead
What the Bible shows
Go to: jw.org (7/26/2026)
[email protected]

>
>HTH.