Re: =Questions for evolutionists=

[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:37:49 -0700, Samuel Spade <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[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?
> 
> Because that force, called evolution, has no mind. It wouldn't care if

Evolution is a process, or a mechanism.  Force has a
specific meaning, and this isn't it.

> a species died out or not. It is blind, deaf, and dumb. Would you
> expect a rock to create a computer? Of course not. Then how can you
> expect evolution like that rock, (blind, deaf, and dumb), to create
> marvelous complex structures like a human body that can produce
> babies. 
> 
> We are talking about very complex creations and relating them to the
> skills of a rock.

I'm not sure how you leapt from evolution to rocks.
But you still don't say 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 doesn't 'know' anything. It is just responding to the
> meteorological physics at that time. Can we say a similar thing for
> evolution? Not at all. 

Exactly.  Yes evolution and abiogenesis are physics in
action.  More complicated than a hurricane, but
following the same fundamentals.


> We keep having hurricanes when the physics are right. But if evolution
> created all the life on earth, why isn't it still doing it? Have the
> evolutionary physics that created all the life forms, just stopped?

Evolution is going on as we speak.  It can be
observed.  In fact Mitchell Holman in aa dilligently
compliled a list of direct observations of evolution
in action, which I copied here:

	Evolution observed
	https://tinyurl.com/yjv4w67u
	https://tinyurl.com/y68hcy8w
	https://tinyurl.com/2u66rnae
	https://tinyurl.com/wtzsmh43
	https://tinyurl.com/55jmce52
	https://tinyurl.com/5c5e3zvm
	https://tinyurl.com/3bvdxjtp

> And what about planets and moons? If evolution existed, why not so
> much of a microbe exists,

You don't know that.  There's no reason to assume no
life on other planets, but you are.

> where on the earth it went bananas.
> 
> There are many life forms that have gone extinct. So the forces of
> physics that originally created them no longer exists? When have you
> ever seen natural physical laws cease to exist?

Sorry, you're bouncing off the wall here.  Focus on 1
thing at a time.

> >> >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)
> 
> At least he was honest.

And abundantly cautious.  As it turns out, he was
mostly right.

> >> >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.
> 
> Both of those things likely came from the same source. Its like a
> giraffe giving birth to a rabbit. It makes no sense. 

Virus is a poor example because it's not necessarily
alive.  Bacteria and whale?  They have distant common
ancestors.  But their lineage is very different.  Why
is this hard to accept?  (Rhetorical question -- we
both know the answer.)


> But the main problem with their THEORY is the golden rule that in most
> cases mutations produce deformities, and  that they usually die before
> their time. That would be like taking 1 step forward, and 2 steps
> backward. Kind of hard to get to your destination that way. 

The dying out of disadvantageous mutations is why they
disappear.  That's natural selection.

Evolution process:
1.  Mutation or other genetic variation
2.  Natural selection by survival

Evolution has evolved us the ability to evolve. That's
everywhere in biology.  Do you know why we have sexual
reproduction?  Because it makes evolution happen!

(snip chimps & neanderthals)

> >> 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.
> >
> In the Bible, Adam was created with a brain. All his parts were
> created at once. 
> 
> You can't expect to get to the truth, if you put limitations on my
> answer. I just answer truthfully.

Say it without limitation, but the evidence just
doesn't support that.  That's why you don't have any.


> >> 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.

There's no need for me to defend your own strawmen.
Give me a break, James.

> >> 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.
> 
> The intent was not to change the subject, but to help support what the

I refused to go down that rabbit hole, then I went
down it in another thread.

> Bible says. How do you define "biblical biology? I have studied the
> Bible for many years. I believe it to be truthful and trustworthy esp
> when it comes to some natural sciences.(like the earth being defined
> as a "circle" (Isa 40:22) hanging upon nothing. (Job 26:7)

That's great.  You haven't studied biology since high
school, have you.

> >(snip)
(again)

> >You are assuming your conclusion.  The truth doesn't
> >work that way.
> 
> True, you need evidence to support your conclusion.
> I gave you some which you 'snipped' out. To put it all together:

Right.  I don't do 300 line posts, especially if 250
lines are irrelevant quoted material.

Show some mercy upon your reader, if any.

> >So, again, if lions could interbreed with house cats,
> >why would that compromise the success of either
> >species?
> 
> It would create a new species. (like maybe a lion with a meek meow."
> (:>)

So?  If the new species is successful, great!

> >> That was super intelligence to keep those species separate, not blind chance.
> >
> >No.  It's physics and chemistry, as already explained.
> 
> Well, we still have physics and chemistry, why don't we see a new
> species or new life forms in their early beginnings? Where are all the
> intermediates? Even Darwin couldn't explain that.

Transitional species are all around us.  We are
transitional species.

(snip wolfdog diversion)

> Fight off sicknesses.
> What can be done.

Get vaxxed today!