Re: =Questions for evolutionists=

[email protected] wrote:
> 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.

How is that related to why you'd expect common descent
to produce clades that can interbreed?

Evolution is a natural process, like weather.  Since
weather has no brain, how does it know what hurricane
recipe works?


> >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. 

Sorry, that makes no sense.  Unable to parse.


> >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?

You tell me how the brain came about, without any
appeal to magic.



> 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

If you can't explain biblical biology, just say so. No
need to dive into the rabbit hole of biblical
cosmology to avoid the biology issue.

(snip)

> >>  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 

You are assuming your conclusion.  The truth doesn't
work that way.

> 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.

The "walls" are because of the mechanics of the
chemistry of life, as I already explained.  Not
because some godlike entity decided they were needed
to keep the races pure.

So, again, if lions could interbreed with house cats,
why would that compromise the success of either
species?


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

No.  It's physics and chemistry, as already explained.


> >> Since God put barriers between different families, it keeps the

Assuming your conclusion again.

God didn't put those barriers there.


> >> 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)

Why did God allow us to breed dogs from wolves?

Different species, yet they can interbreed *and* bear
fertile offspring!

Did God overlook something?


> >> Isn't this approach at least, plausible, and worthy of more scientific
> >> study?

We just studied it and found nothing there.