Such a statement still requires believers to assume knowledge of the mind of God, something not even Jesus did. There is no other context for the phrase 'make far more sense'. You can't rationalize it away.
Umm... it's called spacial relations. Math. Given the size of the Ark, there would have had to be fewer species on it that there are today for them all to fit, and the larger ones would have not been full grown. Knowing God's mind has nothing to do with it. Besides which, knowledge of the mind of God is precisely what we have the Bible for.
@ Leauki: If mutations are required for evolution, then somewhere a species barrier was crossed due to a lack of information. If no barrier was crossed, it could only have been because the information was there beforehand.
Do you see what I'm saying? If you had Ancestor X, maybe called avius raptor, but later generations gained information and became what we would call reptiles, the fact remains that information was gained. Information which did not exist in the avius raptor, but now it exists in the reptile. Obviously these two would be classified differently, and not as the same species. Therefore in gaining information it automatically crossed a "species divide" even though it was never actually classified. If the new reptile and avius raptor were considered the same, it would be because no new information was gained and the new generation was in fact a mere adaptation using existing information.
In gaining information through mutation, the offspring of avius raptor is no longer its natural offspring, but a member of a new and different species. It has thus crossed a divide which no other avius raptors could because they lacked that same information.
The other thing to note is that genetic traits tend to mix poorly. That's probably a large part of why truly beneficial genetic mutations have not yet been observed - DNA for lungs might work great for a mammal, but if a fish tried to use information for lungs it would probably end up with a half-finished set of both gills and lungs, killing it.
Yes, but the reason is based on observation, not genetical borders that mutations cannot cross.
I never said mutations couldn't cross those borders. I simply said that natural progression from parent to offspring cannot cross them. Mutations can do just about anything.
Still though, truly beneficial mutations have not been observed. Sickle-cell anemia might make you immune to malaria, but who cares when the anemia will kill you? Currently observed mutations are all like this; either one benefit is traded for a weakness elsewhere, or a useless extra is gained (such as a third foot, or two-heads on a snake).
Why would there be in-betweens? Whatever became birds and reptiles had traits of them both (and birds and reptiles each have new traits too). In-betweens would mean that the two formed a relationship while mutating. But they didn't. The two populations separated and there was no exchange of information.
This strikes me as a contradiction. If both groups ultimately came from a single ancestor, then observation should show that the two groups have more and more traits in common as the genetic line is traced backward. In other words, the ancestor itself would be the inbetween, correct?
Mutations have been observed. And mutations easily allow for changes in the genetic information.
You know, when I write these responses, they're meant to be read through, not read in pieces. When given the context I thought it was clear I was talking about beneficial mutations, the existence of which has not been proven. Unless that wasn't clear, in which case I apologize.
However, can't you give me enough credit to at least ask yourself, "Could he already know that mutations have been observed?"
If you look at English and German today, you will find they are two different languages. Yet they descend from a common ancestor. It is true that language borders cannot be crossed, i.e. English will never become German over night (or ever). The common ancestor evolved into both German and English without ever crossing a language border. Evolution of life works the same way.
You keep using this example, even though it has a number of flaws which I think I've mentioned before:
1. Languages are actively modified by beings with intelligence and sentience, which is not true of natural selection. Languages do not evolve, they are procedurally created.
2. Languages are not limited by a lack of information, unlike biological systems. A language doesn't need information - it is information, just in differing forms according to the wishes of those using it. German and English could be equated to DNA and RNA - just forms of information encoding something else entirely.
3. Even the most complex language on Earth is millions of times simpler than even the most basic life form.