Re: =Questions for evolutionists=

On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 22:23:47 -0700, Samuel Spade <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[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.  

When have you ever seen a robot built by zero IQ processes? When have
you seen a complicated mechanism like the human body built from
something with a zero IQ? You have got to be smarter than that. 

>Force has a
>specific meaning, and this isn't it.

That's your definition, not mine. What is a "force"? 

"AI Overview
A "force" in the context of technology usually refers to an enterprise
AI platform like HCLTech, a specialized government/military committee,
or a physics push or pull. "

A "physics push or pull describes evolution to the tee.

>
>> 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.

I would call it 'comparative linguistics'. In which two items share a
common bond; such as the IQ of a rock, and the IQ of evolution. We
would expect both would never produce anything complex like the human
brain. Yet they give credit to evolution for doing so.

If those kind of forces really exist, why don't we find all kinds of
mathematically perfect things existing in a forest? Or why don't we
find caves with electric and plumbing and fully furnished? If
something with a zero IQ can created a human brain, then why not the
above?

>But you still don't say why you'd expect common
>descent to produce clades that can interbreed.

If the zero IQ of evolution created all natural things, How did it
know to prevent 'walls' of breeding like between dogs and cats so as
to keep the species intact?

It's like money. Most all money comes from the penny. (or half cent)
For the penny, $1.00 is 100 of them. $20.00 is 2000 of them. All life
forms should be able to breed among each other, if all were built from
the same thing. Why would evolution put barriers between certain
species, which keeps them from breeding out of existence?

>> >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.

See right below.

>
>
>> 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

The peppered moth was designed to respond to its environment. BUT
NOTICE, THEY STILL REMAINED MOTHS. They didn't turn into birds or
something. 

You can take a dog with a thin coat living in the desert, and put it
in Antarctica where it will produce a thicker coat. That is not
macroevolution, but just an animal responding to its environment. BUT
NOTICE, THEY STILL REMAINED DOGS. 

Dogs remain dogs, moths remain moths. If you want to call that
something, that is microevolution. I am discussing macroevolution,
where the species turned into a totally different species. And where
are the transitional's? Darwin couldn't find them. That is because
they didn't exist in the strata to start with.

>	https://tinyurl.com/y68hcy8w

He didn't say his "new species" wasn't still a bacteria, just
different. That is microevolution and it happens all the time. And it
doesn't go against the Bible. But macroevolution does. 

>	https://tinyurl.com/2u66rnae

If I read it right, they still remained bacteria; microevolution.

>	https://tinyurl.com/wtzsmh43

Those finches may have changed a bit, like growing different beaks
etc. (microevolution) But they still remained finches.

You all combine microevolution with macroevolution. But that is only
definitionism. The reality is that macroevolution is bogus.

>	https://tinyurl.com/55jmce52

But the mice remained mice. Microevolution in action.

>	https://tinyurl.com/5c5e3zvm

But the bacteria remained bacteria. That fits in perfectly in Genesis,
where God created all things according to their "kinds". Thus the
bacteria didn't turn into amoebas or something.

>	https://tinyurl.com/3bvdxjtp

Same with this. From what I could tell, the green algae still was
called green algae after the mutation. Again this is microevolution
in action. The Bible has no problem with microevolution.

But just one more thing. Humans in a lab could create a whole new
species from a different one. But that takes a high IQ to accomplish
that. They could change the inner working of a cell and make it
something different. But such changes cannot work in nature.


>
>> 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.

You do have a point here. I was just thinking about all the
explorations we have done so far. I certainly do not know what all the
rest of the universe is like. Notice:

"Scientists have formally catalogued approximately 2.1 million to 2.5
million living species on Earth. However, researchers estimate that
there are actually around 8.7 million total species (with estimates
ranging from 5 million to over 10 million)." (AI Overview)

SO-CALLED EVOLUTION WENT CRAZY HERE ON THE EARTH WITH OVER 8 MILLION
DIFFERENT LIFE FORMS.

With prolific evolution going nuts here, did something shut off the
spigot? So far not even a microbe has been found outside the earth.
What happened?
 
>
>> 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.

I am. That of disproving the reality of macroevolution, and instead
showing that a super intelligence brought life forms into existence by
means of direct creations.

>
>> >> >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.

He was when it came to God:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
into one;" (The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin)

And he was honest in saying that complex things like an EYE, seemed to
be absurd:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (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.
>> 
>> 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.  

Good point. I guess I should have used a protozoa.

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.)

How do you get from a bacteria to a whale. It would have to be
mutation upon mutation upon mutation upon mutation, etc. With so many
mutations the thing shouldn't even exist!

>
>
>> 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.

Isn't it weird that mutations seem to correct themselves and the life
forms usually end up beneficial. That's like a chicken born with no
head, yet ends up with a head patterned for a chicken.
>
>Evolution process:
>1.  Mutation or other genetic variation
>2.  Natural selection by survival

A snake with two heads can survive, yet natural selection always seem
to come up with a beneficial life form. (single headed snakes)That's
like stacking the deck to always be beneficial.

>
>Evolution has evolved us the ability to evolve. That's
>everywhere in biology.  Do you know why we have sexual
>reproduction?  

Yes, for the most part because it feels so good. And secondly, because
the couple want an offspring.

>Because it makes evolution happen!

Only for non-believers.

And, what about life from non-life. (abiogenesis) It would take high
tech humans to make such a thing possible. And we know that life
always comes from previous life. 

>
>(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. He had a full language, and knowledge how to survive where he was at. He didn't start off as a caveman with grunts and groans etc.

>> 
>> 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.

If you take off your evolutionary glasses, you will be able to see
more clearly.

>
>
>> >> 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.

That is not a direct answer to my questions. (of course you don't have
to answer) You and your comrades seem talk about  evolution having an
IQ above zero. Actually evolution has a frigid absolute zero.

>
>> >> 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.

So, what to you mean by "biblical biology"?

>> 
>> 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.

Nor have I studied calculus or electronical engineering and a million
other things. My 'higher learning' did not consist of anything
scientific, which I wish I had done.

So yes, my biology studies have not been upgraded. But what about you.
You haven't put much study into the doctrines of the Bible, based on
your statements.  

>
>> >(snip)
>(again)

Looks like you have caught 'snipping fever'. I prefer discussing
everything said to me. But each their own.

>
>> >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.

If you just snip out quoted material, how did you ever get through
your schooling. Text books, including biology books, quote all the
time to support their information. You could be missing a lot if you
go by that plan.
 Do you quote Einstein when discussing antimatter etc?

>
>Show some mercy upon your reader, if any.

You are in the majority class. We sometimes get violent reactions to
our Bible teachings, esp in other countries. But the Bible warns us to
be prepared for such.


>
>> >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.

Then Darwin must have been blind. He couldn't find much in the strata
that he studied. 
>
>(snip wolfdog diversion)
>
>> Fight off sicknesses.
>> What can be done.
>
>Get vaxxed today!

That's a good start. But any new diseases occurring we are vulnerable.
Hopefully they will develop a vaccine before its too late. 

Fight off sicknesses.
What can be done.
Go to: jw.org (7/30/2026)
[email protected]