| dsgrue3 said:
The problem is you aren't providing any evidence for ID, nor producing doubt on evolution. Inbreeding has nothing to do with evolution. You do realize people were in North America prior to Columbus discovering it, right? Furthmore, Alaska was once attached to Russia. Pangea and all that jazz. The DNA does not change. Mutations occur in certain aspects of the "junk" DNA, but the defining chromosomes are not altered. You asked for examples of hybrid creatures, I provided them. 11 such examples. What more do you need? The constraints, as I've already addressed are concerning the genus, if the DNA is too different, no crossbreed can be formed. That's why species in the same genus can crossbreed. Edit: Still don't understand what you think crossbreeding or migration has to do with ID or Creation. |
Yeah, I said 15k years ago didn't I? I was talking about the berinjians (passing across the bering straight).
It's not a landmass that connected Alaska to Russia that allowed for the human migration, but the ice age's ice bridge. We know that from geology.
What is "junk" DNA and what is the genesis of genetic diseases if mutations only affect junk DNA?
@hybrids. 11 is enough, if it leads us to rules like "the genus is the limit for crossbreading", then it's good. It then begs the question, how does evolution allow for that if for example a bird cannot cross-breed with a wolf. Then how did we get the whole animal kingdom with those breeding constraints?
It has to do with ID and/or creation in that creation does not require a transition between species in order to be true. Contrarily to naturalistic theories, ID and Creation have much less issues other than you need to have faith to believe it because we have no measures of God or creation. All we have are traces of certain biblical events, but we have not seen God or the time of creation.
