Without Argument

I'm wondering if yesterday's post is a little too
much beyond some readers grasp. Some could say
that the example of sexual reproduction supports
the idea of evolution. I'm not sure how, but I
suppose that there are those who would say so.

They might use hybridization as an example. Just
a guess. My aim is to avoid discussion because
that can be found at other places on the web. I
don't have an interest in moderating discussion.
Like it says in Philippians, Let everything be done
without arguing or complaining. Besides, I just
like to work alone anyway, because I'm not out to
prove anything, just to try out some ideas from
suggestions found in ReMine's book.

The idea is that there is variation within limits
imposed by the original design. Yeah. I know that
the Intelligent Design folks don't want to turn it
into a 'religious' discussion. But it is and always
will be anyway. I just don't see how that can be
avoided. The really baffling aspect is that I
don't see *why* that should be avoided.

Anyway, the model begins with all the different
'kinds'. From Genesis 1:

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living
creatures according to their kinds: livestock,
creatures that move along the ground, and wild
animals, each according to its kind." And it was
so.

25 God made the wild animals according to their
kinds, the livestock according to their kinds,
and all the creatures that move along the ground
according to their kinds. And God saw that it was
good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image,
in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish
of the sea and the birds of the air, over the
livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all
the creatures that move along the ground."

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 said to them, "Be fruitful
and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue
it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds
of the air and over every living creature that
moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing
plant on the face of the whole earth and every
tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be
yours for food.

30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the
birds of the air and all the creatures that move
on the ground—everything that has the breath of
life in it—I give every green plant for food."
And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very
good. And there was evening, and there was
morning—the sixth day.

So the 'kinds' were created. And that's what we
see around us today. Everything reproduces after
its 'kind'. In a nutshell, that's the design of
sexual reproduction. From yesterday's post, it
would seem transparent that the mechanism of
reproduction makes the design obvious. Within
each kind, there is a narrow limit of normal
genetic variation, that was provided to allow for
a narrow range of adaptation to different variables
of environment.

Variation is not infinite. There are limits.
What we observe is that after a certain point in
genetic mutation, the genetic line dies off.
Years ago, I read some article about fruit flies
being exposed to high levels of radiation in an
attempt to observe increased rates of mutation.
Alot of fruit flies died off. They didn't turn
into house flies. Again, animal breeders find
that if inbreeding continues, so that variation
is minimized, genetic problems tend to show up.
The extremes of too much variation, as in the
case of the fruit fly experiments, and not enough
variation, as in the case of continued inbreeding
seem to suggest that there are design barriers
that imply every creature only has the capability
to reproduce after its 'kind'.

These days, experimenters have the technology to
perform 'gene splicing' and cloning. That is the
same as non-random recombination and mutation.
As far as I know, there has been some success with
developing new plant varieties of the genetic
hybrid kind. But there hasn't been any success
with making something like a corn plant that
bears gold nuggets. You know, the idea that money
grows on trees, just to prove mom was wrong. But
we already know that, in a sense, money does grow
on trees. Ever hear of pecans or almonds?

Given the idea that things reproduce after their
kind, then the evolutionary tree would really look
like an evolutionary orchard, with each kind
branching out to the designed limits of its own
specific variational varieties. That's what we
see in the world around us. We find a variety of
dogs, flowers, trees, grass, fish, etc. that can
interbreed to some extent. With gene splicing in
the lab toolbox, the mechanical reproductive
barriers can be overcome in an effort to select
specific characteristics. But when you consider
what we see around us, it appears that even in
the fossil record, you just don't find the
evolutionary intermediates that are needed to
support the recombination-and-mutation-without-
limits model. It is nowhere to be found. You
would think, that at this point, experimenters in
the lab would have been proud to display something
along those lines -- the missing link(s). The
design model of the created kinds, seems to agree
more closely with the evidence that we see.

That would bring us back around to ReMine's idea
that there is a 'biotic message' and that the
message is deliberately misdirected by the efforts
of those who desire to support the recombination-
and-mutation-without-limits model. You have to
ignore what you see around you and divert your
attention to the model that's displayed in text
books in order to gain the desired perspective.
For the purpose of indoctrination, the text book
model serves well enough, but you need to have the
ability to blissfully ignore the evidence provided
by the creation. Funny, that's what the Apostle
says in Romans 1:

19 since what may be known about G-d is plain to
them, because G-d has made it plain to them.

20 For since the creation of the world G-d's
invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine
nature—have been clearly seen, being understood
from what has been made, so that men are without
excuse.

The invisible qualities are clearly seen in the
creation, as far as what can be known about the
Creator. In other words, there is a design. Or
as ReMine puts it, there is a message. But notice
that the Apostle does not say that the message is
found only in a text. It is 'seen' in the
creation. As I heard over and over while I was
growing up, Don't believe everything that you
read. Good advise then, as it is now. Besides,
we have the clear message of creation.

With a little motivation, I suppose that there are
any number of arguments that can be made against
the position that I take here. My approach is to
follow the advise of the Apostle and do everything
without arguing. Easier said than done.