Re: =Questions for evolutionists=

[email protected] wrote:
> 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.

You still haven't explained this one.


> >> >> 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. 

Robots don't reproduce.  So they can't evolve.  This is
irrelevant, a red herring.


> >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.

No, that's the scientific definition.

Force equals mass times acceleration.  That's the most
fundamental & important equation in all of physics.

Force is measured in pounds or newtons.  How many pounds does
evolution exert?

(snip evolution to rocks)

> >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?

That's not an explanation, it's just more unsupported
assertions.

I'm not so sure evolution is not intelligent.  It
accomplishes things, it builds on complexity.  At the end of
the day, definitions of intelligence are just semantics. They
don't shed light on anything.

Trial and error is a powerful process.

> It's like money.

Not at all.

(...)

> >> >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. 

There's no such thing as microevolution.  What you see there
is just fast short-term evolution.

> Dogs remain dogs, moths remain moths. If you want to call that
> something, that is microevolution. I am discussing macroevolution,

Dogs were bred from wolves over about 15,000 years.

> 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. 

Bacteria can be as different as eels and monkeys.

> >	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.

(...)

> 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's only speculation.  How do you know that?

> that. They could change the inner working of a cell and make it
> something different. But such changes cannot work in nature.

Speculation.

> >> 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?

First, you are confusing evolution with origin of life.
Evolution isn't about how life started, it's about how life
adapted and diversified once it got started.

Second, abiogenesis requires very favorable conditions in
order to happen.  On earth, it happened very early and very
quickly.  Can it happen elsewhere?  Yes, but we don't even
know what conditions are required, let alone the process.

Third, if you are demanding detailed explanations of how
abiogenesis & evolution happened, be prepared to give
detailed explanations of how creation happened.  "Goddidit"
isn't saying anything.  How did this creative magic work?
Show your work.

(...)
> >> >> "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)

There are indeed transitional species.  You can google it as
well as I can.  The reason they are scarce is explained by a
model called "punctuated equilibrium", advanced by Gould and
Elledge in the 1960.  Environmental pressure causes rapid
adaptation and speciation.

(...)
As you correctly observe, Darwin was very careful not to make
claims he couldn't support.  In science, self-doubt is a good
thing.

> >> >> >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!

You don't necessarily get from bacteria to whale.  The
working hypothesis is that they have common ancestors.
Doesn't mean one evolved into the other.

Good mutations cause successful adaptations.  Bad ones are
discarded.  Simple.  Where do you get the idea that mutations
build up to cause harm.

(...)
> >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.

Believers can evolve too.  I was one once.

> 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. 

No, we don't know that.  In fact, we know that abiogenesis
happened at least once, because life exists now, so it can
happen again.  Unless you claim that life has existed
eternally, and we both agree that the universe isn't eternal.

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

I would say the same to you.  Science is your friend, even if
it sometimes turns people into liberal secular humanists.

> >> >> 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.

That's your opinion.  Evolution gets results, call it what
you will.

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

Biology as presented in the bible.

> >> 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.

I studied a lot of science and applied science.  But it's
remarkable how much insight you can get by remembering a bit
of high school biology, chemistry & physics.  A little
knowledge will refine your bullshit detector.

I learned about the bible -- not nearly as much as you.  I've
read some about the history and context.  I don't believe it
was inspired; YMMV.

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

Again i'm not going to repeat long quotes in a thread no one
is probably ever going to read except you & me.  How many
lines of quotes is enough?

> >> >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?

You mean why don't we see brand new life abiogenesing before
our eyes?  Simple.  All these primitive nucleotides and
aminos and lipids etc. are like candy to already advanced
life forms.  The molecules get devoured before they get to
first base.  4 billion years ago, it was different.

> 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.

From pterodactyl to ostrich, there are many intermediate
species in the fossil record.  Ditto fish to lizard.  Cow to
orca.

But the smoking gun is the genetic database.  Now that
genomes can be sequenced, the tree of life can be laid out
pretty completely.