I need a new blog. Or help with this one. Or no, really what I need is a new set of eyes. I've asked the Lord for that, and the nineteenth century South african pator Andrew Murray says the redeemed should expect to receive healings as part of our salvation but we have to have the faith for it and I don't. I suppose that is the reason anyway, but maybe I could build up more faith if I prayed about it. But then again I never expected to live to this age and I don't kow why I'm still here. I don't seem to have anything I'm called to do expect write my blog.
I could probably just dither myself to death about such things.
I thinkthe arguments I've collectd against evolution are enough to kill the monster dead but if I can'yt make the arguments clear to people I'm just flailing around unselessly. Yes I could dither myself to death this way.
they really do think that the changes we see in every species from generation to dgeneration are evidence of evolution. I don't know how they can ohold onto that idea knowing what we know about how the genetic processes work but apapretly the simple fact that the phenotype or creature itself is seen to vary is enough for evidence for them. Dawkins didn't build in any form of restraint to his little figure that rolls from change to change and supposedly proves evolution. Coyne said the difference between the wolf and the chihuahua is proof of evolution. This astonishes me.
Ken Ham of course talks about the Kindsx as the basic forms of living things, each creted separately and unrelated to all the other kinds renetically. This is the creationist reference point. As Ham says we don't have to think about the many thousands of species evolutionists identify in the world today as having been on the Ark, since all we need o have on the ark is eighter two or seven of each creature Kind. All the species we see now would descend from those afger the Flood.
I think we need to make more of the fact that each Kind has its own genome. There is a human genome, and a cat genome and a dog genome and I think also a bird genome. thw genome defines the Kind and all the species of that Kind come from genetic variations built into the genome, the two alleles per gene and many genes per trait in most cases and so on. That is enough to make for all the different kinds of cats and dogs and birds and human hbeings. RThese different species emege in isolation from other populations, wthether through natural selection or just random selection and geographic isolation, whatever brtings about the inbreeding of a particular set of gene frequencies within an isolated population. That's all it takes. It's variation not evolution.
ther eis n way to get from any of these evolved species to anything other than another species of the same Kind if there is enough genetic variability left for that after a breed has been well established. All you can eve get is variations on the traits established by the genome to belong to that AKind and that's all you an ever get.
Or if they think you can get to another Kind or SPeicies that way they haven't yet demonstrated how they think this is possible. I've speent a lot of time tring to think that through and enver been able to come up iwth a way it could be possible. Outside the genome as it were or maybe that is the wrong way to put it. You have to change the trait itself not just the variation of tht trait.
Back at EvC forum I was always being asked how do I define the Kind. Ham says it seems to be the equivalent of the Family on the Linnaean system. I don't think that is true for every Kind but for many. But I'ds want to define it as a shared genome. You can look at a genome and know whether it belongs to a human being or a dog or a cat, right? That's one way to define the Kind. Another way is the body plan. that hit me a few years ago as I relaized that even the very different looking birds have skeletons that are prettymuch identical, same proportions, same location of appendages etc.
And body plan doesn't vary, or varies only slightly, through all the manyu vaiaiont so fhte spearate traits that develope the many different breeds of dogs, cats, cattle etc etc. they all have the same body plan even if they are very different from each other in their general appearnace.
My main argument at EvC for years was that you get reduced genetic vqaariability when you are getting changes in the appaearance of a population. It is a trend, so it won't always show up in some obvious way, but it has to happen as getting new forms of a trait means losing the other forms of it. As you get a particular kind of fur for your bred you are losing all the other kinds. Eventually as the breed becomes refinesd you can lose ALL the alleles for all the other forms of a trait so that your breed is homozygous for all its salient traits. That is a very reduced genetic variability. You need heteroszygosity for variability.
Body plan and behavior too. Dogs all act like dogs, all of them they all bark and wag their tails and slobber all over you if they like you and mark their territory in the same way and sniff each other's behinds and all that. that is the dogness of dogs. Cats also have their own set of behavior s that identify them as cats.
So there you have some eaysways of identifying what a Kind is, that creature that was idndepently and uniquely formed at the Creation.
I can't remember if I'm leaving out some other parts of the biological picture that make for evidence against evolution.
But then there is the geological evidence which is against an Old Earth rather than evolution as such. If you ponder the physical facts of the layers of sedimentary rock in which the fossils are found it's not hard to realize pretty soon that they couldn't possibly represeent time periods of tens of millions of years which is what we are told . And I still enjoy Bill Nyr'd trbrlsyion Bill Nye's revelation that not only is there no fossil from higher levels found in lower levels but the same is true of the fossils in the lower levels. they don't "swim" up to the higner levels as he put it because he thinks of it as a problem for the Flood. Rally is t is a problem for evolution as even theyh don't think that when a creature evolved all the creatures that it evolved from just disappear, but that is the way it looks according to Bill Nye. Oops.
I'd like to sketch out the whole thing here and hope I'll get back to it but I'm ready for a break at the moment.
Later: So where as I?
The Kind is defined by its genome which contains the intstructions for that Kind in all its variations and no other Kind.
Whenever a breed or race is being developed, when phenotypes are changing the character of a population, that is always accompanied by a reduction in genetic diversity as the variations that do not fit the new breed or race are eliminated from the population over generations, and means that there is a natural limite to the changes that are possible down any line of so called evolution which is really just ariation. AThat means that evolutoin is brought to a halt exactlyh where it is asupposed to be particularly about to take off according oto the evolutionist argument.
Then we find that in the so called fossil record fossils lower in the stack of layers do not appear in layers above but if the layers did actually repreesent the time periods of tend of millions of years assigned to them by the theory of evolution all the creatures should persist through all the layers to present time that are now living in our own time on this earth, but according to Bill Nye this is not the case. We get a fish or sea animal in onwe layer and in the next layer we cget an amphibian and we say the second evolved from the firsrt but we get no more of the sea creature, it stops and onlyh the amphibian continues and only for that layer because in thelnext layer up whatever supposedly evolved form the amphibian is alone there without the ambphibian itself and so on, no reptiles with the mammals, no apes witht e humans and so on. This is not a picture of how evolution is said to occur so therefore the fossil record is bogus.
then I'd mention the erosion piles at the base of various formations such as the buttes in Monument valley where if they are supposedly millions of years old ovr even many thousands the erosion is way too little for that length of time. That's an argument for a young yearth instead of the millions or billions of years.\
Then the is the fact that the layers of sediments in which the fossils are found are clearly undisturbed in themselves while the entire stack of layers shows a lot of disturbance. That couldn't be if they each represent time periods of tens of millions of years. it is onlyh after they are all in place that we see the usual disturbances this planet is said to experience such as volcanoes and earthquakes and hurricanes and other things that would disturb the surface of the earth or even the sea bottom for that matter.
then there is the fact that if you just look at the layers and think about them you hae to conclude that they couldn't ever have been part of a time period of millions of years or any time period at all. they are made up of separate sediments which already makes no sense out of the idea that each occupied a particular time period. They are tabletop flat in their original laying down and that doesn't happen anywhere under normal circumstances of deposition, on the sea floor or on the surface of the earth or even perhaps some depth eneath the surface.
That do in the idea of time periods of millions of years and leae it open for a young earth.
