But you take the text through a convoluted mess of MSWV in order to make it talk in a way you understand, and thus throw the actual meaning in the waste bin.
Oh, rubbish and nonsense! It could be trillions of years (which some scholars have read in the text) and that wouldn’t have been put down because it would have been meaningless. If Moses had written “a thousand thousand thousands” the audience then wouldn’t have calculated it out, they wouldn’t have even seen it as numbers but as symbolism.
This rests on the fallacy of anthropomorphization, projecting human behavior and thought onto nature.
The first part of your statement is not about evolution. Mutations create new information, as has been observed; natural selection just sorts it.
Hoyle was talking out of his expertise – his calculations have nothing to do with biology.
He also held that life on Earth came from the stars, and that the universe had no beginning, so be careful who you quote.
Heh. Given that its framework and order were lifted from the Egyptian creation story, that would raise some theological problems.
Like the bacteria that developed the ability (new information) to actually metabolize arsenic when their ancestors used to die from mere parts per million.
Why do I feel like this is a sixth grade classroom and someone flunked fifth grade science? This is like thinking that a rummy player won a game only because those were the cards he was dealt right at the end, totally ignoring that he discarded some cards and acquired others along the way. All such card games are won based on cards acquired along the way.
Thanks St Roy!
I pulled that Hebrew off a bible translator, I think the cut/ paste mixed it all up. Sorry everyone! I really don’t know Hebrew. Actually I was writing a poem and the Hebrew words was the crown of thorns the strong’s definition is the cross .
I am totally excited about this view! As it can help heal the unnecessary division between Christians on this issue.
One more observation, is that the first creation is not commanded into existence. The silence of God creates the deluged earth. The negation of the word creates the naught/Chaos! the empty set from which all things can now be created !
The water is outside the earth= the blood is outside the body = death /disorder/
“In my distress I called to the Lord, and he answered me. From deep in the realm of the dead I called for help, and you listened to my cry. You hurled me into the depths, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me, all your waves and breakers, swept over me. I said, ‘I have been banished from your sight; yet I will look again toward your holy temple. The engulfing waters threatened me, the deep surrounded me; seaweed was wrapped around my head. To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you, Lord my God, brought my life up from the pit”. (Jonah 2: 1-6)
The earth is raised on the third Day! (baptism)
The ground produces Seed and Vine= Bread and Wine (Lords supper) for Adam and clean animals (these ruminate on the grass! Chew on jesus continually) Unclean don’t ruminate on the grass.
LOL I am very excited about this. If there is any serious Christian philosophy guy who would help critique? I would be much appreciated, ( I am a carpenter/poet to be honest )
Yes all things hold together in Him. ! But what if that is the literal metaphysic not metaphor?
The interpretation of the evidence is where the problem lies. We both have the same evidence but we both interpret it according to our disparate worldviews, yours it appears from a Theistic Evolution perspective and mine from a literal historical narrative perspective.
what Richard is saying actually would make sense if evolution was a reality,
However, the religious belief that evolution IS natural selection filling available ecosystem niches that arise from time to time, is in error.
The fact that on this website, I see the term, Natural Selection which is real, being used interchangeably with the term evolution is not surprising, but clearly in error.
What is always being missed by those that believe evolution is a reality is that Natural Selection can ONLY select from what ALREADY exists.
Thus, if we start at a single celled form of life, in the alleged 'primordial soup, (another myth), Natural Selection can only ever select from the information already present on the genome of that single celled form of life.
Natural Selection can NOT create the vast quantity and quality of NEW complex specified information of the type needed to go from a single cell to man.
It is a fairy tale held by faith.
More to the point, when an organism that has one of the very, very rare beneficial mutation that also is visible to Natural Selection that confers a degree of benefit to the organism through say a change in the environment, that benefit nearly always comes at the cost of an overall loss of some of the original information from its genome that corrupted (i.e., mutated), that makes it less fit than others in the population when and if the environment reverts back to the previous or original environment.
The tendency of evolutionists is to call ALL Change in organisms as evolution, is plainly in error.
Creationist Christians know that organisms can change, however, the change is ALWAYS limited WITHIN the specie, i.e., a cat will always be a cat, a bacteria will always be a bacteria, a tree will always be a tree.
The myth of the primordial soup single celled life blossoming into the enormous diversity of brilliantly designed and beautiful species of life we observe today has never been observed. Again, it is a belief held entirely by faith! `
The massive increase in complex and specified genetic information from the single celled organism to the diversity of life on Earth is impossible through Natural Selection, no matter how many millions of years you throw at it!
Of course I realise many TEC’s here will disagree and claim in faith that evolution is real and will come up with any number of what they think are plausible stories to explain away the inconvenient fact that Natural Selection CANNOT CREATE new complex specified information. That is a solid fact of empirical science that cannot be ignored.
An interesting article that sets out well what I am talking about is at:
A relevant excerpt from the above article at the hyperlink is below:
Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
The continual evolution of human pathogens has come to pose one of the most serious health problems facing human societies. Many strains of bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics as natural selection has amplified resistant strains that arose through naturally occurring genetic variation.
Similar episodes of rapid evolution are occurring in many different organisms. Rats have developed resistance to the poison warfarin. Many hundreds of insect species and other agricultural pests have evolved resistance to the pesticides used to combat them—even to chemical defenses genetically engineered into plants.
However, what has this to do with the evolution of new kinds with new genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects ‘evolving’ resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.
In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information. It may seem surprising that destruction of information can sometimes help. But one example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced. This enables the bacterium to resist the antibiotic. But normally, this mutant would be less fit, as it wastes resources by producing unnecessary penicillinase.
Another example of acquired antibiotic resistance is the transfer of pieces of genetic material (called plasmids) between bacteria, even between those of different species. But this is still using pre-existing information, and doesn’t explain its origin.
The reality is that you are talking about ‘biologists’ who believe that both 'deep time’ and 'evolution’ are real facts.
I know of many Biologists and other well credentialed scientists who agree that, ‘evolution is a man-made religion that requires faith’.
But evolution is not measurable in any form whatsoever!
As you claim "evolution is “measurable” in the fossil record " perhaps you can answer:
1.) What empirical SI units are being measured?
2.) What is the rate of change that is being measured?
3.) How can you calibrate the measuring instruments that you claim are used to measure evolution?
well, as I have previously said on this site, I accept the historical narrative of Genesis as true history that God has provided for us, so that people throughout history and the present and in the future will know what occurred.
I am not absolutely certain I understand what your question is asking with regard to the word “earth”. I expect it is most likely you mean the earth as described in Genesis 1:1
If you mean by the word “Earth”, you mean the entirety of the world that God created when He created the heavens and the earth,
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
It is the first day of creation week that God made the ‘earth’, if that is what you mean by the word “earth”.
Although unlikely, I am not certain that you are not referring to the dry land, thus:
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas”; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth produced vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, according to their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
It is the third day of creation week that God made the dry land appear in the midst of the waters, if that is what you mean by the word “earth”.
Thus again,from the Bible, see text in bold italics as honest historical narrative:
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas”; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth produced vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, according to their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
And also:
26 Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every animal of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Thus to me at least, the Bible is very clear, and I believe God has ensured His Word to mankind has been clear to all peoples with access to it throughout history.
If someone has used natural selection interchangeably with evolution, that is a mistake. I do not believe that this mistake represents the understanding of most of those who comment on this forum. If you rely too much on such a mistake, you create a strawman that does not exist.
By the way, evolution is not a religious belief or even a belief system at all. Claiming that would also lead to fighting against a strawman.
Biological evolution could be defined simply as heritable changes in the gene pool of a population from one generation to the following ones. That such changes happen is an observable fact.
ToE is a scientific theory that utilizes observed biological evolution to explain a large set of observations about current and past life. There is no need to believe in ToE because it is not a belief system. It just happens to be the theory that can best explain all observations (facts) about life. If you can suggest an alternative theory that can explain the observations as well as ToE, scientists would happily inspect the theory and test the predictions it makes. So far, none have been able to suggest an alternative theory that could explain all observations of life as well or better than ToE.
Dear Tim,
please accept my apologies if this seems a bit blunt, but I must state it the way I honestly see it.( i.e., calling a spade a spade.)
It’s evident there’s a real propensity for those that believe evolution is real, to creatively invent convenient ‘just so’ stories, which I have noticed is a common characteristic of evolutionists and it seems TEC’s.
The tacit unsaid inference of the origin of feathers or anything for that matter, is a matter of human conjecture, that can only possibly be based upon many assumptions, novel forensic evidence and a desire to maintain and reinforce the evolution worldview.
When research is performed being driven by the above motivations and beliefs, it is little wonder the results concluded continue to reinforce the ruling paradigm of evolution.
We must trust God’s Holy Word, rather than mankind’s guesswork, conjecture and faith in a false teaching.
It’s evident that there is a real propensity for those that believe evolution is not real, to disregard the painstaking rigour and attention to detail that evolutionary biologists apply when formulating their hypotheses. The term “just so story” suggests a belief that they just make things up with no regard either for previous work or for testability. In reality, evolutionary biologists, like any other scientists, are meticulous about paying close attention to both of these things.
Evolutionary explanations are expected to be consistent with each other, with the evidence, and with established scientific facts. They are also expected to propose tests for their validity. It should be noted that it is possible to construct such tests without having been there from beginning to end to see things happen and you don’t need a “secular” or a “materialist” worldview to do so either. The “were you there” argument is nothing more nor less than wilful ignorance of what real professional working scientists actually do.
It is one thing to reject evolution for whatever reason. It is a different matter altogether to imply that those who study it are being sloppy or indisciplined in their research. Claims that they “creatively invent just so stories” are accusations of scientific misconduct and must be sustained with evidence before being taken seriously.
Dear Knor,
thank you for your thoughts.
I certainly do not wish to put any straw men into the discussion.
When I talk about evolution I am referring to the ‘alleged’ necessary changes that have ultimately resulted in the increase in species diversity on Earth from the alleged primordial first single cell that could reproduce itself right through to the diversity of life we see exists on Earth.
I have no doubt whatsoever that changes to the gene pool in a population occur over time from one generation to succeeding ones, but that change is not evolution in the sense of what I have described above, it is merely change 'within’ a population.
As I have previously stated, regardless of how many of those changes have occurred, (still within the particular Biblical kind), a Cat is still a Cat, a Goanna is still a Goanna, a Bison is still a Bison, a Horse is still a Horse, a Dog is still a Dog, a bacteria is still a Bacteria, a Moss is still a Moss, a Whale is still a Whale etc…
I suggest that in most cases the changes to which I expect you are referring to are merely examples of differential reproduction within a population, i.e., they’re not evolution in the Amoeba to Man sense as I loosely defined above.
A wonderful article that clearly sets out some misconceptions of what creationists see as ‘Natural Selection’ is at:
A relevant short excerpt of that article is below: Ways to create change without death and struggle
Consider the example of Jacob, who kept breeding streaked and speckled sheep from an all-white flock (Genesis 30:25–43). He changed the coat colour of his flock, and he did not have to kill the white sheep in order to do it. The white coat colour is dominant in sheep, which means that the dark phenotype can remain hidden within a population. But where do these ‘hidden’ traits come from? Today, mutation plays a strong role, and most mutations are bad, but there are several ways of generating variation without mutation.
First, God would have front-loaded his creation with genetic variation. Most of the variation within humans today is probably ‘created diversity’ that made it through the Flood bottleneck.
Second, during reproduction, chromosomal recombination shuffles genes. This means new gene combinations can come into being that never existed before. God could easily have front-loaded the genomes of His creatures with hidden information that would only be revealed later.
Third, when two organisms that are closely related mate, hidden traits can come to the fore. In Jacob’s example, by breeding a ram and a ewe who both carried the recessive dark-colour gene, he knew that many dark-coloured lambs would be produced.
Fourth, certain DNA changes might be pre-programmed, thus not all changes should be called ‘mutations’. An example of a pre-programmed change includes the so-called ‘jumping genes’, or retrotransposons. These are short sections of DNA that can pop out of the genome and insert themselves somewhere else. They are important. One type jumps around in the human brain during embryonic development, affecting the behaviour of different types of brain cells.3 It is entirely possible that they could contribute to diversification within the created kinds after creation.
Fifth, DNA methylation and histone acetylation are environmentally induced phenomena whereby certain genes are turned on or off, according to the needs of the organism. This is part of a rapidly developing field called epigenetics, and it is a serious challenge to Darwinism. There is even mounting evidence that these methylation patterns can be inherited. Also, when a woman is pregnant with a female baby, that baby’s ovaries and egg cells develop quite early. Thus, the environment of the grandmother could lead to the switching on and off of genes in the mother, the child, and the eggs that will be used to produce grandchildren, who will not be born until many years later.
Once we have a way to generate new variation, and there is every reason to think this would have happened naturally (there’s that word again!) in an unfallen world, we only lack one thing for natural selection to operate: a changing environment.
END OF EXCERPT FROM THE ABOVE ARTICLE
Knor, you may also benefit from reading the following article at:
This article sheds a great deal of clarity on the confusion exhibited by many evolutionists about natural selection, as the short excerpt from this article below shows:
Natural selection is not evolution!
Many evolutionists are blind to the fact that merely changing the ratio of the light- and dark-coloured moths is not evolution. At best, it would be an example of natural selection. However, as the famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) pointed out, “Natural selection ranked as a standard item in biological discourse” among the pre-Darwinian creationists.2 In other words, natural selection is not proof of evolution, neither is it in conflict with creation.
Natural selection is better defined as differential reproduction: the ability of some organisms to leave behind a higher number of offspring based on how well suited they are to a given environment.3 But all this means is that the genes carried by these individuals will be better represented in the next generation while other genes will become less common.
In the end, selection works by removing genes from the population. This is the opposite of what is required for evolution, since evolution requires the creation of brand-new genetic information that codes for new complex biochemical processes. For all these reasons, peppered moths cannot be used as evidence for evolution.
Dear Mervin,
forgive me if this offends, but to be perfectly honest here, the reason you supply is merely wishful thinking without a skerrick of substance.
It is in effect nothing more than the usual appeal to random chance given enough time it will happen! Which is utter nonsense and is really a religiously held belief that has nothing to do with science.
The most common real reason is that the information for an adaptation is already present within the population, and the new environmental niche, selects from the gene pool of the population of those that are most favoured by the new niche such that their numbers increase throughout the population over time and eventually become fixed in the population.
But that usually occurs at a genetic cost to the information in the adapted organisms genome.
Don’t be too hard on yourself! All of us seem to find plenty to be offended at in our various turns among God’s created realities. Just keep attending to reality as best you can nonetheless. It’s one of God’s effective ways of getting our attention.
Dear Roymond,
but I am not reading the Bible from a modern scientific worldview!
I am sorry but I cannot in good conscience agree, thus the only thing we can do is agree that we disagree.
But that is precisely it, I am not adding anything to the scripture.
I am certainly not perfect, I am a lowly sinner, with many faults that my Lord knows only too well, and I do not think I am better than anyone else, here or elsewhere.
But you are utterly inconsistent, if you agree that Jesus Himself accepted the Scriptures as authoritative and true, then you would know as I do that Jesus knew the creation in the Garden that Adam and Eve and the Global Flood were real events that occurred precisely as written in Genesis.
It is not I that insists on performing strenuous mental gymnastics to fit the historical narrative of Genesis into whatever version of the Theistic Evolution belief framework you subscribe to, and then claim the text says the precise opposite of what all the painstakingly carefully performed translations (all around the world), so clearly state. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Of course the text was written for an ancient audience, that is a given, but that doesn’t automatically mean that the thousands of dedicated brilliant scholars throughout history who have translated the many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many translations of the Holy Scriptures all got it wrong! That belief is clearly absurd!
Sorry, but despite your monotonous repetition to the contrary, I am not forcing a modern scientific worldview onto the Holy Scriptures, as I would hope should be clear to anyone reading this thread.
And here you go again, making unsubstantiated accusation after unsubstantiated accusation.
Let us examine your claim,:" “Nothing in the scriptures – not a single line – was written with any of today’s concerns in mind”.
But didn’t Jesus Himself quote from the Scriptures including the Genesis creation account, thousands of years after the creation event occurred; He believed Genesis was relevant to the people about 2,000 years ago,
He should know as He was there, and although completely human, He was also fully divine deity and perfect.
Matthew 26:59 - 68
59 Now the chief priests and the entire Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.
60 They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward,
61 and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’”
62 The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You offer no answer for what these men are testifying against You?”
63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I place You under oath by the living God, to tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”
64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? See, you have now heard the blasphemy;
66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”
67 Then they spit in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, 68 and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?”
It is good to understand also:
37 And as soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen, 38 shouting:
“Blessed is the King, the One who comes in the name of the Lord; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”
39 And yet some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples!” 40 Jesus replied, “I tell you, if these stop speaking, the stones will cry out!”
41 When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known on this day, even you, the conditions for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will put up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44 and they will level you to the ground, and throw down your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”
What makes you so adamant that our omniscient Creator did not have ALL of humanity in mind when He inspired the writing of the Holy Scriptures?
Here again, you make an absolutely unsubstantiated claim that is obviously false! What is scientific about stating what is so clearly obvious? Before man was created on Day 6 there was no-one else to see the creation, except for God Himself, that fact is derived merely by applying common sense!!!
I have an old friend who is an atheist who is constantly bringing up falsities and what he believes are contradictions in the Bible, he has claimed that the creation story flood account is along the lines of a local myths in the middle East in those times, and is very similar to the claims that you continually make.
Again, I do not believe for a second that the the thousands of dedicated brilliant scholars throughout history who have translated the many Biblical translations got it wrong. Surely, the words they have chosen for the original Hebrew and Greek are the closest English words to communicate the original meaning. Why do you think they all got it so wrong???
I know of Messianic Jews who know Hebrew thoroughly who believe the texts to have the same meaning as the literal historical narrative of creation and the flood in Genesis for example. They subscribe to a six normal day creation and a flood that covered all the Earth and killed ALL nephesh chayyah life except for those on the ark. They have studied the Holy Scriptures their entire lives! What makes you the only correct authority on what you believe is correct?
That is precisely what you are doing. I don’t doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs, and God knows you as he knows me and everyone else.
You are again claiming that my plain straightforward reading of the Holy Scriptures is
forcing, “a modern scientific worldview” onto it, which is clearly a false claim at best.
Of course it is my question, but that is not an answer, all you do is dodge the question.
I ask in all sincerity and honesty, please think about it, it is important, WHY do you think God asked Noah to build an ark?
If it was only a local flood?
The only thing that makes any sense is that the flood covered all the land under heaven, (that is, ALL THE EARTH, it was a GLOBAL FLOOD).
Protesting and talking fast to dodge the question, doesn’t answer it. WHY?
You keep making this claim, but I see no reason to accept that whatsoever.
The text does not make reference to “known earth” or “flat earth-disk” that is all a construction of your or someone else’s, but I refute that is the meaning of the text. It is merely the meaning you choose to apply that’s in accord with your worldview.
I understand the Bible in accord with many translations that I believe are reliable and accurate.
`Again forgive me, but if what you claim is correct, then why don’t the many translations concur with your very odd and to my way of thinking false teaching interpretation of the texts?
… … …
Again, of course it doesn’t say the exact words, ":sea going vessel", but that is precisely what the ark is (built to the dimensions given in the Holy Scriptures), as its whole purpose is to carry all the animals and people to safety for one year, upon the waters that covered all the land under heaven, which logically is one ocean that covered the Earth, (yes, I say the Earth, because that is precisely what that means, if the vessel floated upon the flood waters it was a sea going vessel by definition, whether the original writer was aware of that or not, it is a moot point, and is utterly irrelevant to what God has made so clear and obvious!
That feathers have a role in thermal regulation is a just so story?
Retaining heat is a great big huge crucial life or death deal. Dying of exposure is a survival risk that often does not end well. The more time birds have to spend warming chicks at their nest, the less time they have for gathering food. For insulation, keratin expressed as down and feathers work great. Why do you think people have used down and feather fill in clothes and blankets for ages?
There is solid fossil and genetic evidence for the development of feathers. To some people, that is actually relevant and matters.
Rather too much diversity from one family, even with wives. Jeanson’s book “Traced” and his “look at my population curve!!!” is off in population genetics lala land and cannot accommodate current human diversity, and even he admits that Neanderthal DNA essentially falsifies the whole thing.
If you want to look at it that way, but there is absolutely no doubt that feathers are the most important flight element of birds. That just cannot be “luck”
Evolution cannot build in stages with a fixed outcome. Flight (feathered) becomes an even greater fluke than humanity.
Not only that , but from a physical standpoint, where is that in the DNA record, or from a biological standpoint? . Are some arguing that pre flood people were triploid or quadraploid to have more than 2 copies of alleles? How do they propose that would work? Any proposals out there? It would be interesting to see.
Taking this to the nth degree, all single celled organisms should contain all the DNA sequences needed to make the whole diversity of life.
The point being, that if DNA sequences are “invented” by deviation why should they work?
I knlow that calling DNA sequences a code is not the correct understanding, but it would seem to be a fair analogy, I have always wondered how, if DNA is basically a recipe how it converts enzymes into structures be it anything bigger than a single cell?
(Please remember that I was at college before Fredrick Sanger made his breakthrough in sequencing and a long time before the Human decoding project)